On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 12:42 AM, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On 11/12/2015 08:52, Ingo Molnar wrote: >> >> * Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> Reviewed-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx> >> >> Thanks. I've added your Reviewed-by to the 1/5 patch as well - to be able to put >> the whole series into the tip:x86/entry tree. Let me know if you'd like it to be >> done differently. > > The 1/5 patch is entirely in KVM and is not necessary for the rest of > the series to work. I would like it to be separate, because Marcelo has > not yet chimed in to say why it was necessary. > > Can you just apply patches 2-5? Yes, please. I don't grok the clock update mechanism in the KVM host well enough to be sure that patch 1 is actually correct. All I know is that it works better on my laptop with the patch than without the patch and that it seems at least conceptually correct. In any event, patch 1 is a host patch and 2-5 are guest patches, and they only interact to the extent that it's hard for me to test 2-5 on the guest without patch 1 on the host because without patch 1 my laptop's host kernel tends to disable stable kvmclock, thus disabling the entire mechanism in the guest. --Andy -- 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
