Jeff Dike wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 04, 2008 at 03:31:58PM +0100, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>
>> Shouldn't UML use a monotonic host clock for guest timekeeping?
>>
>
> Indeed, Eric pointed out the posix timers, which I had forgotten
> about. On the face of it,
Jeff Dike wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 03, 2008 at 01:07:09PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
>> So if I change the host's time by an hour, the time will not advance at all
>> on the guest for the next hour? Sounds suboptimal :)
>>
>
> It is, but if the host is whacked, the guest just has to do the b
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
You should rename it then to "asmcall" or something.
>>> if then that should be a separate renaming patch.
>>>
>> Well you're asking for the ugly hacks for out of tree code. [...]
>>
>
> nice word-be
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>>> Should we re-add them for the function pointers in
>>>> asm-x86/paravirt.h?
>>>>
>>> yes, yes, yes. :-) It was a nightmare to sort it out in -rt
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>> Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>
>>> we should kill it there too.
>>>
>>> the only place where we should _please_ keep those annotations are for
>>> function
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>> Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>
>>> we should kill it there too.
>>>
>>> the only place where we should _please_ keep those annotations are for
>>> function
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> we should kill it there too.
>
> the only place where we should _please_ keep those annotations are for
> functions that get called from assembly code. This makes life immensely
> easier for -pg (CONFIG_FUNCTION_TRACING) kernels.
Should we re-add them for the function pointe
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
http://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=98444
--- Additional Comments From jeremy goop org 2005-02-03 02:17 ---
Hm, nothing obvious sticks out. That
