[PATCH v11 3/5] arm: introduce CONFIG_PARAVIRT, PARAVIRT_TIME_ACCOUNTING and pv_time_ops

[Stefano Stabellini]

On Fri, 20 Nov 2015, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 02:40:31PM +0000, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > On Fri, 20 Nov 2015, Christopher Covington wrote:
> > > Hi Stefano,
> > > 
> > > On 11/20/2015 09:31 AM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 10 Nov 2015, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > > >> On Thu, 5 Nov 2015, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > > >>> Introduce CONFIG_PARAVIRT and PARAVIRT_TIME_ACCOUNTING on ARM.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> The only paravirt interface supported is pv_time_ops.steal_clock, so no
> > > >>> runtime pvops patching needed.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> This allows us to make use of steal_account_process_tick for stolen
> > > >>> ticks accounting.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Signed-off-by: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini at eu.citrix.com>
> > > >>> Acked-by: Christopher Covington <cov at codeaurora.org>
> > > >>> Acked-by: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell at citrix.com>
> > > >>> CC: linux at arm.linux.org.uk
> > > >>> CC: will.deacon at arm.com
> > > >>> CC: nico at linaro.org
> > > >>> CC: marc.zyngier at arm.com
> > > >>> CC: cov at codeaurora.org
> > > >>> CC: arnd at arndb.de
> > > >>> CC: olof at lixom.net
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Russell,
> > > >> are you OK with this patch?
> > > > 
> > > > Russell,
> > > > 
> > > > I am going to drop this patch and add a small #ifdef to
> > > > arch/arm/xen/enlighten.c to be able to use this functionality on arm64.
> > > > 
> > > > If you change your mind let me know.
> > > 
> > > It appears to me as though he's not copied on this message.
> > 
> > He was. He is now in To:.
> 
> I think the patch is fine.

Thanks


> Sorry, but I no longer read every email that passes by due to the amount
> of email I now receive, and due to the nature of modern email clients with
> their stupid ideas about how to formulate the To: and Cc: headers for
> replies[*], I attach no significance to being mentioned in either the To:
> or Cc: headers.
> 
> Overall, what this means is it's now difficult to attact my attention to
> any particular thread.  Sorry about that, I have no solution to this
> problem.

FWIW as somebody that receives pretty large amounts of emails myself
with my name in CC or To, I understand and I don't have a solution
either :-(


> * - modern mailers have started to preserve the To: and Cc: headers from
> the message being replied to, which means that if I'm mentioned in the
> To: header initially, my address stays in the To: header despite the
> discussion not being directed _at_ me.  Hence, deciding what to reply to
> based on where my address appears in the headers is meaningless with
> modern mail clients.
> 
> -- 
> FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 9.6Mbps down 400kbps up
> according to speedtest.net.
>