From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Glauber Costa <glommer@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 7/9] KVM-GST: KVM Steal time accounting
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 23:53:16 -0300
Message-ID: <4E0D369C.4090403@redhat.com>
References: <1309361388-30163-1-git-send-email-glommer@redhat.com>	 <1309361388-30163-8-git-send-email-glommer@redhat.com> <1309470869.12449.607.camel@twins>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy.fitzhardinge@citrix.com>,
	Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>,
	Anthony Liguori <aliguori@us.ibm.com>,
	Eric B Munson <emunson@mgebm.net>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <1309470869.12449.607.camel@twins>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org

On 06/30/2011 06:54 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-06-29 at 11:29 -0400, Glauber Costa wrote:
>> +       if (static_branch(&paravirt_steal_enabled)) {
>
> How is that going to compile on !CONFIG_PARAVIRT or !x86 in general?
> Only x86-PARAVIRT will provide that variable.
>
>

Good point. I'd wrap it into CONFIG_PARAVIRT.
To be clear, the reason I did not put it inside 
CONFIG_PARAVIRT_TIME_ACCOUNTING, is because I wanted to have the mere 
display of steal time separated from the rest - unless, of course, you 
object this idea.

Using CONFIG_PARAVIRT achieves this goal well.