From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1753022AbaIEWnZ (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Fri, 5 Sep 2014 18:43:25 -0400
Received: from www.linutronix.de ([62.245.132.108]:35081 "EHLO
	Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751237AbaIEWnY (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 5 Sep 2014 18:43:24 -0400
Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2014 00:43:17 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Gleb Natapov <gleb@kernel.org>, KVM list <kvm@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] KVM changes for 3.17-rc4
In-Reply-To: <540A2F15.5070603@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1409060042020.5472@nanos>
References: <1409912186-22968-1-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com> <CA+55aFxum+O9j4ohV=BwJR_+q+hMAZ2QLp0SpgZzYFWs9F=EUg@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.10.1409052254450.5472@nanos> <540A267E.1070002@redhat.com> <alpine.DEB.2.10.1409052314330.5472@nanos>
 <540A2F15.5070603@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.10 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Linutronix-Spam-Score: -1.0
X-Linutronix-Spam-Level: -
X-Linutronix-Spam-Status: No , -1.0 points, 5.0 required,  ALL_TRUSTED=-1,SHORTCIRCUIT=-0.0001
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Fri, 5 Sep 2014, Paolo Bonzini wrote:

> Il 05/09/2014 23:24, Thomas Gleixner ha scritto:
> > 
> >> > that besides acting as a workaround, I find the patched code easier to
> >> > understand, and I clearly stated the same in the tag message.
> > Well, we might have different opinions about easier to understand. I
> > did go a great length to distangle the monotonic boot time on which
> > you are interested from xtime, because the latter does not make any
> > sense outside of the core timekeeping code. Aside of that I optimized
> > the whole thing to avoid conversions, loops and hoops. So you just add
> > another multiply and add to make it more understandable. 
> 
> Fair enough, I've dropped the patch.

Though I agree that the struct member name choice is not the most
brilliant one, so feel free to fix that.
 
> Thanks for helping out with the core timekeeping fix.

I'm still banging my head against the wall....