[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180427193204.GD23874@flask>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2018 21:32:05 +0200
From: Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [RESEND] KVM: x86: use timespec64 for
KVM_HC_CLOCK_PAIRING
2018-04-23 10:04+0200, Arnd Bergmann:
> The hypercall was added using a struct timespec based implementation,
> but we should not use timespec in new code.
>
> This changes it to timespec64. There is no functional change
> here since the implementation is only used in 64-bit kernels
> that use the same definition for timespec and timespec64.
>
> Fixes: 55dd00a73a51 ("KVM: x86: add KVM_HC_CLOCK_PAIRING hypercall")
(Removed the "Fixes:" tag as it doesn't really change behavior.)
> Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
> ---
> I originally sent this in October, but got no reply. The patch
> is still required for the overall cleanup of 'timespec' uses
> in the kernel, please apply.
Queued now, thanks!
Anything we need to do for the x86_platform_ops switch?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists