Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758988Ab3EGNfE (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 May 2013 09:35:04 -0400 Received: from smtp.citrix.com ([66.165.176.89]:59659 "EHLO SMTP.CITRIX.COM" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758058Ab3EGNfC (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 May 2013 09:35:02 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,628,1363132800"; d="scan'208";a="23728333" Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 14:34:59 +0100 From: Stefano Stabellini X-X-Sender: sstabellini@kaball.uk.xensource.com To: Ian Campbell CC: Stefano Stabellini , "xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" , "linux@arm.linux.org.uk" , "arnd@arndb.de" , "marc.zyngier@arm.com" , "konrad.wilk@oracle.com" , "will.deacon@arm.com" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "nico@linaro.org" , "olof@lixom.net" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "cov@codeaurora.org" Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH RFC v2 2/4] arm: introduce CONFIG_PARAVIRT and pv_time_ops In-Reply-To: <1367931376.26321.117.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com> Message-ID: References: <1367851878-21629-2-git-send-email-stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com> <1367918609.26321.43.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com> <1367931376.26321.117.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1108 Lines: 25 On Tue, 7 May 2013, Ian Campbell wrote: > On Tue, 2013-05-07 at 13:15 +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > > On Tue, 7 May 2013, Ian Campbell wrote: > > > On Mon, 2013-05-06 at 15:51 +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > > > > Introduce CONFIG_PARAVIRT on ARM. > > > > > > What about PARAVIRT_TIME_ACCOUNTING? I'm not sure what it is but it > > > looks like a more lightweight version of pv stolen time? > > > > PARAVIRT_TIME_ACCOUNTING selects PARAVIRT on x86 :-) > > Ah, that's maybe what confused me. > > TBH its not at all clear to me what distinction the core code is trying > to make with those two options, but do we not also want/need > PARAVIRT_TIME_ACCOUNTING? Having reread the help text it seems to be > some sort of "more accurate" accounting? It is not clear to me either. I think that you are right, we probably want PARAVIRT_TIME_ACCOUNTING too. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/