On 23/04/2015 00:55, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 11:01:49PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >> >> >> 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 don't know. Should have fixed the host protocol. No problem. Let's do the right thing now. >> 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. > > Yes it was rushed in. Ok, so re-reverted it will be. 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
