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;
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 0/2] kvm: Use host timekeeping in guest.
To:     Suleiman Souhlal <suleiman@google.com>, rkrcmar@redhat.com,
        tglx@linutronix.de
Cc:     john.stultz@linaro.org, sboyd@kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        ssouhlal@freebsd.org, tfiga@chromium.org, vkuznets@redhat.com
References: <20191010073055.183635-1-suleiman@google.com>
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Openpgp: preference=signencrypt
Message-ID: <3120662b-9ea6-d86c-dc04-5f06a6e60afc@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 10 Oct 2019 12:43:11 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20191010073055.183635-1-suleiman@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 10/10/19 09:30, Suleiman Souhlal wrote:
> 
> Changes in v2:
> - Move out of kvmclock and into its own clocksource and file.
> - Remove timekeeping.c #ifdefs.
> - Fix i386 build.

This is now pretty clean, so my objections are more or less gone.  I
haven't put much thought into this, but are all fields of struct
timekeeping necessary?  Some of them are redundant with the existing
wallclock MSRs.  The handling of versioning probably varies depending on
the exact set of fields, too.

Paolo