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

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

On Thursday 10 July 2008 18:22:15 Yang, Sheng wrote:
> 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...

Drop Eric here...

-- 
Thanks
Yang, Sheng

>
> 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
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html