On Fri, 2011-03-18 at 11:24 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2011-03-17 23:42, Glauber Costa wrote:
> > kvmclock presence can be signalled by two different flags. So for
> > device creation, we have to test for both.
> Patch is OK, but the subject's logic is inverted.
Indeed, should have said something like "to test for either of them"
Dear maintainers, is it okay to commit with a minor edit to the
changelogs?
> Jan
>
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Glauber Costa <glommer@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > hw/kvmclock.c | 6 +++++-
> > 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/hw/kvmclock.c b/hw/kvmclock.c
> > index b6ceddf..004c4ad 100644
> > --- a/hw/kvmclock.c
> > +++ b/hw/kvmclock.c
> > @@ -103,7 +103,11 @@ static SysBusDeviceInfo kvmclock_info = {
> > void kvmclock_create(void)
> > {
> > if (kvm_enabled() &&
> > - first_cpu->cpuid_kvm_features & (1ULL << KVM_FEATURE_CLOCKSOURCE)) {
> > + first_cpu->cpuid_kvm_features & ((1ULL << KVM_FEATURE_CLOCKSOURCE)
> > +#ifdef KVM_FEATURE_CLOCKSOURCE2
> > + || (1ULL << KVM_FEATURE_CLOCKSOURCE2)
> > +#endif
> > + )) {
> > sysbus_create_simple("kvmclock", -1, NULL);
> > }
> > }
>
--
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
