From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Roger_Pau_Monn=E9?= Subject: Re: [PATCH] xen: fix initialization of wallclock time for PVHVM on migration Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 18:14:25 +0200 Message-ID: <51B74CE1.306@citrix.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Keir Fraser Cc: George Dunlap , Jan Beulich , xen-devel@lists.xen.org List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 11/06/13 18:12, Keir Fraser wrote: > On 11/06/2013 16:59, "Roger Pau Monn=E9" wrote: > = >>> Hmm I can't find any confirmation that my patch actually *did* work. :(= I'm >>> sure I remember testing it though! >>> >>> My suggestion is we do indeed remove the inner if() in latch_shinfo_siz= e(). >>> Ie. Call update_domain_wallclock_time() even if shinfo size has apparen= tly >>> not changed. = >>> >>> We only latch shinfo size on hypercall page initialisation and on setup= of >>> the callback irq. They are start-of-day/resume operations, so removing = the >>> if() should have no bad side effect that I can see. If nothing else it >>> should make this wallclock-field setup more robust. >> >> So it would be better to call update_domain_wallclock_time >> unconditionally on latch_shinfo_size rather than doing it on >> XENMAPSPACE_shared_info? >> >> Conceptially it makes more sense IMHO to do it in the call to >> XENMAPSPACE_shared_info. > = > I would still make the fix in latch_shinfo_size() and perhaps add an extra > call to latch_shinfo_size() from the call to XENMAPSPACE_shared_info. But > actually I am sure you will find it unnecessary and at this point for Xen > 4.3 I think the smallest possible patch wins. ACK, will resend the patch.