On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 3:44 AM Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On 13/08/21 12:39, Oliver Upton wrote:
> > 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
>
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
