From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:34813)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <amit.shah@redhat.com>) id 1X86cN-0006pk-E8
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 18 Jul 2014 07:46:32 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <amit.shah@redhat.com>) id 1X86cG-0003Me-Rh
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 18 Jul 2014 07:46:27 -0400
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 17:15:41 +0530
From: Amit Shah <amit.shah@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <20140718114541.GB26614@grmbl.mre>
References: <1405674265-24058-1-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com>
	<1405674265-24058-6-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com>
	<20140718113143.GE26186@grmbl.mre> <53C906AF.6060407@suse.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <53C906AF.6060407@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PULL 5/6] Revert "kvmclock: Ensure proper
 env->tsc value for kvmclock_current_nsec calculation"
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, mtosatti@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, qemu-stable@nongnu.org

On (Fri) 18 Jul 2014 [13:36:15], Alexander Graf wrote:
> 
> On 18.07.14 13:31, Amit Shah wrote:
> >On (Fri) 18 Jul 2014 [11:04:24], Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >>This reverts commit 9b1786829aefb83f37a8f3135e3ea91c56001b56.
> >>
> >>Cc: agraf@suse.de
> >>Cc: mtosatti@redhat.com
> >>Cc: qemu-stable@nongnu.org
> >>Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
> >Please include some information on why this is being reverted.  Helps
> >people browsing the tree later.
> 
> Yeah, I'm also not convinced it's a great idea to trade one known bug with
> another known bug.

I'm not opposed to the revert, though.  We don't yet have a fix for
the issue caused by the original patch, and Paolo is being
conservative in keeping the older bug around for 2.1, rather than
trading it for unknown bugs at this stage.

The investigation for the bug is proceeding, though, and we may get a
fix soon.  If it turns out to be well-contained, we could also look at
backporting all the fixes to -stable, if it helps.

		Amit