On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 17:31 -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 03:12:36PM -0200, Glauber Costa wrote:
> > On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 19:04 -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > > On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 09:03:46AM -0500, Glauber Costa wrote:
> > > > Usually nobody usually thinks about t
On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 03:12:36PM -0200, Glauber Costa wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 19:04 -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 09:03:46AM -0500, Glauber Costa wrote:
> > > Usually nobody usually thinks about that scenario (me included and
> > > specially),
> > > but kvmcloc
On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 19:04 -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 09:03:46AM -0500, Glauber Costa wrote:
> > Usually nobody usually thinks about that scenario (me included and
> > specially),
> > but kvmclock can be actually disabled in the host.
> >
> > It happens in two scenar
On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 07:04:01PM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 09:03:46AM -0500, Glauber Costa wrote:
> > Usually nobody usually thinks about that scenario (me included and
> > specially),
> > but kvmclock can be actually disabled in the host.
> >
> > It happens in two
On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 09:03:46AM -0500, Glauber Costa wrote:
> Usually nobody usually thinks about that scenario (me included and specially),
> but kvmclock can be actually disabled in the host.
>
> It happens in two scenarios:
> 1. host too old.
> 2. we passed -kvmclock to our -cpu parameter.
Usually nobody usually thinks about that scenario (me included and specially),
but kvmclock can be actually disabled in the host.
It happens in two scenarios:
1. host too old.
2. we passed -kvmclock to our -cpu parameter.
In both cases, we should not register kvmclock savevm section. This patch
