Re: [PATCH 2/5] kvmtrace: make cycle calculation architecture aware

["Yang, Sheng" <sheng.yang@intel.com>]

On Wednesday 09 July 2008 23:03:19 Hollis Blanchard wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-07-09 at 11:17 +0200, Christian Ehrhardt wrote:
> > So the question that is left before changing that is, if the
> > original author had something special in mind chosing cycles
> > here. I added Eric on CC for that.
> >
> > I wait with my resubmission of the patch series until all
> > architectures agree *hope* on using getnstimeofday() - after an
> > ack from all sides I would revise my patch series and submit that
> > changes alltogether.
>
> I got an email bounce from Eric the last time I tried to email him,
> so I'm not sure he's still with Intel.
>
> However, I don't think he had any special intention; I think he was
> just porting xentrace to KVM.

Eric had completed his internship in Intel, so...

I like the term "timestamp" too. I think he used "cycles" only because 
there is a function called get_cycles().

But instead of getnstimeofday(), I suggest using ktime_get() here. 
It's little more precise than getnstimeofday(), and ktime_t is more 
easily to be handled. And I think the overhead it brought can be 
ignored too.

--
Thanks
Yang, Sheng