[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 18:18:04 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: akataria@...are.com
CC: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
Daniel Hecht <dhecht@...are.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Skip tsc synchronization checks if CONSTANT_TSC bit is
set.
Alok Kataria wrote:
>
> I agree with the synthetic cpu feature thing.
> Do you think i should use one of the existing word like the word 3 which
> is for synthesized feature bits ? Or is it better to define a new
> virtualization specific word ?
>
I don't see any point in using anything other than word 3 until it fills up.
What we want to end up with is cleanly separated: hypervisor detection,
hypervisor features/workaround settings, and the implementation of those.
-hpa
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists