[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1702101326520.4036@nanos>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 13:28:25 +0100 (CET)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>
cc: Stephen Hemminger <sthemmin@...rosoft.com>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
KY Srinivasan <kys@...rosoft.com>,
Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@...rosoft.com>,
Dexuan Cui <decui@...rosoft.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"devel@...uxdriverproject.org" <devel@...uxdriverproject.org>,
"virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org"
<virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86/vdso: Add VCLOCK_HVCLOCK vDSO clock read
method
On Fri, 10 Feb 2017, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> Stephen Hemminger <sthemmin@...rosoft.com> writes:
>
> > Why not use existing seqlock's?
> >
>
> To be honest I don't quite understand how we could use it -- the
> sequence locking here is done against the page updated by the
> hypersior, we're not creating new structures (so I don't understand how
> we could use struct seqcount which we don't have) but I may be
> misunderstanding something.
You can't use seqlock, but you might be able to use seqcount. Though I
doubt it given the 0 check ....
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists