[PATCH v11 3/5] arm: introduce CONFIG_PARAVIRT, PARAVIRT_TIME_ACCOUNTING and pv_time_ops

[linux@arm.linux.org.uk (Russell King - ARM Linux)]

On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 02:40:31PM +0000, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2015, Christopher Covington wrote:
> > Hi Stefano,
> > 
> > On 11/20/2015 09:31 AM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > > On Tue, 10 Nov 2015, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > >> On Thu, 5 Nov 2015, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > >>> Introduce CONFIG_PARAVIRT and PARAVIRT_TIME_ACCOUNTING on ARM.
> > >>>
> > >>> The only paravirt interface supported is pv_time_ops.steal_clock, so no
> > >>> runtime pvops patching needed.
> > >>>
> > >>> This allows us to make use of steal_account_process_tick for stolen
> > >>> ticks accounting.
> > >>>
> > >>> Signed-off-by: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>
> > >>> Acked-by: Christopher Covington <cov@codeaurora.org>
> > >>> Acked-by: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>
> > >>> CC: linux at arm.linux.org.uk
> > >>> CC: will.deacon at arm.com
> > >>> CC: nico at linaro.org
> > >>> CC: marc.zyngier at arm.com
> > >>> CC: cov at codeaurora.org
> > >>> CC: arnd at arndb.de
> > >>> CC: olof at lixom.net
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Russell,
> > >> are you OK with this patch?
> > > 
> > > Russell,
> > > 
> > > I am going to drop this patch and add a small #ifdef to
> > > arch/arm/xen/enlighten.c to be able to use this functionality on arm64.
> > > 
> > > If you change your mind let me know.
> > 
> > It appears to me as though he's not copied on this message.
> 
> He was. He is now in To:.

I think the patch is fine.

Sorry, but I no longer read every email that passes by due to the amount
of email I now receive, and due to the nature of modern email clients with
their stupid ideas about how to formulate the To: and Cc: headers for
replies[*], I attach no significance to being mentioned in either the To:
or Cc: headers.

Overall, what this means is it's now difficult to attact my attention to
any particular thread.  Sorry about that, I have no solution to this
problem.


* - modern mailers have started to preserve the To: and Cc: headers from
the message being replied to, which means that if I'm mentioned in the
To: header initially, my address stays in the To: header despite the
discussion not being directed _at_ me.  Hence, deciding what to reply to
based on where my address appears in the headers is meaningless with
modern mail clients.

-- 
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 9.6Mbps down 400kbps up
according to speedtest.net.