[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAK8P3a1imdvg3TA810GNy49JhnzTka05DXhFLyxZmdk0YuugBw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 14:16:36 +0200
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
"the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
y2038 Mailman List <y2038@...ts.linaro.org>,
Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
Marcos Paulo de Souza <marcos.souza.org@...il.com>,
Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, xen-devel <xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: convert x86_platform_ops to timespec64
On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 2:08 PM, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com> wrote:
> On 16/10/2017 10:11, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Since you've looked at it overall, do you have an opinion on the question
>> how to fix the PV interface to deal with the pvclock_wall_clock overflow?
>
> It has to be done separately for each hypervisor.
>
> In KVM, for example, it is probably best to abandon
> pvclock_read_wallclock altogether, and instead use the recently
> introduced KVM_HC_CLOCK_PAIRING hypercall. drivers/ptp/ptp_kvm.c is
> already using it and it's y2106 safe.
Right, makes sense. I see that this interface is currently implemented
only for 64-bit x86 in kvm_emulate_hypercall(). Could this be extended
to x86-32 and the non-x86 architectures as well?
Arnd
Powered by blists - more mailing lists