On 22/04/2015 22:56, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: >> > But then why was the task migration notifier even in Jeremy's original >> > code for Xen? > To cover for the vcpu1 -> vcpu2 -> vcpu1 case, i believe. Ok, to cover it for non-synchronized TSC. While KVM requires synchronized TSC. > > If that's the case, then it could be reverted indeed; but then why did > > you commit this patch to 4.1? > > Because it fixes the problem Andy reported (see Subject: KVM: x86: fix > kvmclock write race (v2) on kvm@). As long as you have Radim's > fix on top. But if it's so rare, and it was known that fixing the host protocol was just as good a solution, why was the guest fix committed? I'm just trying to understand. I am worried that this patch was rushed in; so far I had assumed it wasn't (a revert of a revert is rare enough that you don't do it lightly...) but maybe I was wrong. Right now I cannot even decide whether to revert it (and please Peter in the process :)) or submit the Kconfig symbol patch officially. Paolo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
