lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Nov]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v11 3/5] arm: introduce CONFIG_PARAVIRT, PARAVIRT_TIME_ACCOUNTING and pv_time_ops
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@arm.linux.org.uk
> > >>> CC: will.deacon@arm.com
> > >>> CC: nico@linaro.org
> > >>> CC: marc.zyngier@arm.com
> > >>> CC: cov@codeaurora.org
> > >>> CC: arnd@arndb.de
> > >>> CC: olof@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.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-11-20 18:01    [W:0.046 / U:0.636 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site