On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 3:44 AM Paolo Bonzini [off-list ref] wrote:
On 13/08/21 12:39, Oliver Upton wrote:
quoted
Might it make sense to fix this issue under the existing locking
scheme, then shift to what you're proposing? I say that, but the
locking change in 03/21 would most certainly have a short lifetime
until this patch supersedes it.
Yes, definitely. The seqcount change would definitely go in much later.
Extracting KVM_{GET,SET}_CLOCK to separate function would also be a
patch of its own. Give me a few more days of frantic KVM Forum
preparation. :)
Sounds good :-) I'm probably going to send this out once more, in
three separate series:
- x86 (no changes, just rebasing)
- arm64 (address some comments, bugs)
- selftests (no changes)
--
Thanks,
Oliver
Paolo
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel