Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Fri, 20 Sep 2019 12:23:12 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
cc:     Suleiman Souhlal <suleiman@google.com>, rkrcmar@redhat.com,
        john.stultz@linaro.org, sboyd@kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/2] kvm: Use host timekeeping in guest.
In-Reply-To: <1ec0b238-61a7-8353-026e-3a2ee23e6240@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1909201221070.1858@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
References: <20190920062713.78503-1-suleiman@google.com> <1ec0b238-61a7-8353-026e-3a2ee23e6240@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (DEB 202 2017-01-01)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 20 Sep 2019, Paolo Bonzini wrote:

> On 20/09/19 08:27, Suleiman Souhlal wrote:
> > To do that, I am changing kvmclock to request to the host to copy
> > its timekeeping parameters (mult, base, cycle_last, etc), so that
> > the guest timekeeper can use the same values, so that time can
> > be synchronized between the guest and the host.
> > 
> > Any suggestions or feedback would be highly appreciated.
> 
> I'm not a timekeeping maintainer, but I don't think the
> kernel/time/timekeeping.c changes are acceptable.

Indeed. #ifdef WHATEVERTHEHECK does not go anywhere. If at all this needs
to be a runtime switch, but I have yet to understand the whole picture of
this.

Thanks,

	tglx