From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] KVM fixes for 2.6.26-rc7 Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 11:59:27 +0300 Message-ID: <48674EEF.3020500@qumranet.com> References: <48616182.9030902@qumranet.com> <20080625191723.GA20531@dmt.cnet> <48633511.8000403@redhat.com> <200806261045.57192.bernd-schubert@gmx.de> <48639027.2040607@codemonkey.ws> <4863911F.5090807@qumranet.com> <20080626134357.GE21543@ralph.linux2go.dk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Anthony Liguori , Bernd Schubert , Gerd Hoffmann , Marcelo Tosatti , kvm@vger.kernel.org To: Soren Hansen Return-path: Received: from il.qumranet.com ([212.179.150.194]:23884 "EHLO il.qumranet.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752256AbYF2I73 (ORCPT ); Sun, 29 Jun 2008 04:59:29 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20080626134357.GE21543@ralph.linux2go.dk> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Soren Hansen wrote: > On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 03:52:47PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote: > >>> The ubuntu kernel has a newer KVM module backported to it so it's >>> really 2.6.25-rcX. >>> >> That's a big no-no. We only guarantee binary compatibility for >> kernel.org releases. kvm-blah releases may break compatibility >> temporarily as issues are worked out. >> > > Well, anyhow, let's focus on getting this fixed, shall we? > > The kernel modules shipped in 2.6.24 was causing all sorts of issues, so > in an effort to fix those, IIRC I grabbed what was in 2.6.25 at the time > and backported that, so if I were to get this issue fixed, it should be > sufficient to find anything that touches the kvm clock ABI between > 2.6.25-rc and 2.6.25 final. Does that sound about > right? > Yeah. To be on the safe side you can have KVM_CHECK_EXTENSION return false for KVM_CAP_CLOCKSOURCE. > I'm a bit confused about this, though. I was under the impression that > for the KVM_CLOCK stuff to work, it'd would have to be in the host *and* > the guest kernel, but our kernels don't have KVM_CLOCK enabled at all? > > Hmm... Looking at the code, it seems it does require host support, but > it's not #ifdef'ed, so that would explain my confusion.. > Yeah, host and guest support are completely orthogonal. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function