Re: [PATCH 0/5] KVM: arm64: pvtime: Fixes and a new cap

[Andrew Jones <drjones@redhat.com>]

On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 07:01:04PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 2020-07-11 11:04, Andrew Jones wrote:
> > The first three patches in the series are fixes that come from testing
> > and reviewing pvtime code while writing the QEMU support (I'll reply
> > to this mail with a link to the QEMU patches after posting - which I'll
> > do shortly). The last patch is only a convenience for userspace, and I
> > wouldn't be heartbroken if it wasn't deemed worth it. The QEMU patches
> > I'll be posting are currently written without the cap. However, if the
> > cap is accepted, then I'll change the QEMU code to use it.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > drew
> > 
> > Andrew Jones (5):
> >   KVM: arm64: pvtime: steal-time is only supported when configured
> >   KVM: arm64: pvtime: Fix potential loss of stolen time
> >   KVM: arm64: pvtime: Fix stolen time accounting across migration
> >   KVM: Documentation minor fixups
> >   arm64/x86: KVM: Introduce steal-time cap
> > 
> >  Documentation/virt/kvm/api.rst    | 20 ++++++++++++++++----
> >  arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h |  2 +-
> >  arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c              |  3 +++
> >  arch/arm64/kvm/pvtime.c           | 31 +++++++++++++++----------------
> >  arch/x86/kvm/x86.c                |  3 +++
> >  include/linux/kvm_host.h          | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
> >  include/uapi/linux/kvm.h          |  1 +
> >  7 files changed, 58 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
> 
> Hi Andrew,
> 
> Sorry about the time it took to get to this series.

No problem.

> Although I had a number of comments, they are all easy to
> address, and you will hopefully be able to respin it quickly

I'll address all the comments and get it respun right away.

> (assuming we agree that patch #1 is unnecessary).

I'm not sure yet. I've suggested yet another interpretation
of the spec and will see what you say about that.

Thanks,
drew