From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753499Ab1HHOSo (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Aug 2011 10:18:44 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:3893 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753235Ab1HHOSn (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Aug 2011 10:18:43 -0400 Message-ID: <4E3FF029.4060401@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2011 17:18:17 +0300 From: Avi Kivity User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110707 Thunderbird/5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Matt Fleming CC: Jan Beulich , hpa@linux.intel.com, mjg@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, john stultz , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , Marcelo Tosatti , Jeremy Fitzhardinge Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86, efi: Don't recursively acquire rtc_lock References: <4E3C30C602000078000740D5@nat28.tlf.novell.com> <1312810836.10579.127.camel@mfleming-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <1312810836.10579.127.camel@mfleming-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 08/08/2011 04:40 PM, Matt Fleming wrote: > On Fri, 2011-08-05 at 18:04 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: > > > > Virtual platforms will have to take care of the serialization in the > > host anyway, so the guest side implementation of getwallclock et al > > is entirely unaffected. > > Ah, OK, that's the important part. I didn't realise that rtc_lock isn't > actually required by any other code. In which case, yes, it completely > makes sense to push the locking of rtc_lock down into the > implementations that actually need it. > > It'd be great if I could get some ACK's from the virtualization guys. Ack (for that aspect). -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function