From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Fernando Luis Vazquez Cao <fernando_b1@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] target-i386: clear guest TSC on reset
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2013 18:20:04 +0900
Message-ID: <52A196C4.7030601@lab.ntt.co.jp>
References: <1386054500.25757.10.camel@nexus> <529D90A6.2080801@lab.ntt.co.jp> <52A0186A.2050207@lab.ntt.co.jp> <1386224104.3091.3.camel@nexus> <52A04732.4040105@redhat.com> <52A07C5A.9090105@lab.ntt.co.jp> <52A08541.6090702@redhat.com> <52A09EF4.5080800@lab.ntt.co.jp> <20131205161707.GB17277@amt.cnet> <52A0AC09.4090202@redhat.com> <52A189B2.4060305@lab.ntt.co.jp> <52A18C77.9040700@redhat.com> <52A1913C.3090508@lab.ntt.co.jp> <52A193F0.709@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8;
	format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE
Cc: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>,
	Gleb Natapov <gleb@kernel.org>,
	Will Auld <will.auld@intel.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org,
	kvm@vger.kernel.org
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from tama50.ecl.ntt.co.jp ([129.60.39.147]:44326 "EHLO
	tama50.ecl.ntt.co.jp" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1757143Ab3LFJU0 (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 6 Dec 2013 04:20:26 -0500
In-Reply-To: <52A193F0.709@redhat.com>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

On 2013=E5=B9=B412=E6=9C=8806=E6=97=A5 18:08, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 06/12/2013 09:56, Fernando Luis V=C3=A1zquez Cao ha scritto:
>>>>
>>>> I will also be sending a patch that makes the TSC writeback
>>>> unconditional, but this one should probably be kept on hold
>>>> until it is properly tested.
>>> If you test it, I can drop the "if" myself from your patch.
>> Unfortunately I will not have time to test patch 2 properly
>> for a while, so I think it would make sense to merge patch
>> 1 first.
> As I said, I'm not sure that patch 1 is an improvement...

Well it fixes and existing bug (without desynchronizing) and
I think it does not make the existing code uglier (it even gets
rid of one if statement! :) ). I guess the latter depends on
the eye of the beholder though.


> I'll try to=E3=80=80test it myself.

Thank you. Same here if time permits.

- Fernando