From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: [PATCH] allow userspace to adjust kvmclock offset Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 18:23:36 +0200 Message-ID: <4AE08708.6070302@redhat.com> References: <1254849896-3947-1-git-send-email-glommer@redhat.com> <4AD2EE86.50807@redhat.com> <20091013122828.GZ8092@mothafucka.localdomain> <4AD4730C.9010305@redhat.com> <20091013124638.GC8092@mothafucka.localdomain> <4AD670FC.7010004@redhat.com> <20091015145855.GI8092@mothafucka.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: Glauber Costa Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20091015145855.GI8092@mothafucka.localdomain> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org On 10/15/2009 04:58 PM, Glauber Costa wrote: > >> The motivation for relative adjustment is when you have a jitter >> resistant place to gather timing information (like the kernel, which can >> disable interrupts and preemption), then pass it on to kvm without >> losing information due to scheduling. For migration there is no such >> place since it involves two hosts, but it makes sense to support >> relative adjustments. >> > Since we added the padding you asked for, we could use that bit of information > to define whether it will be a relative or absolute adjustment, then. Right now, > I don't see the point of implementing a code path that will be completely untested. > > I'd leave it this way until someone comes up with a need. > I agree with that, but padding by itself is insufficient. You also need a flags field. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function