Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 22 Apr 2015 19:55:59 -0300 | From | Marcelo Tosatti <> | Subject | Re: [GIT PULL] First batch of KVM changes for 4.1 |
| |
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.
> 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.
> Right now I cannot even decide whether to revert it (and please Peter in > the process :)) or submit the Kconfig symbol patch officially. > > Paolo
| |