On Fri, 2023-11-03 at 16:41 +0000, Benjamin Beichler wrote:
> Although the information for the next requested time was already sent in
> a prior message, this change introduces the otherwise unused time
> variable in the TT message. This addition enables an extra consistency
> check and can otherwise be ignored.
Seems fine to me.
> --- a/include/uapi/linux/um_timetravel.h
> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/um_timetravel.h
> @@ -77,9 +77,9 @@ enum um_timetravel_ops {
> /**
> * @UM_TIMETRAVEL_WAIT: Indicate waiting for the previously requested
> * runtime, new requests may be made while waiting (e.g. due to
> - * interrupts); the time field is ignored. The calendar must
> process
> - * this message and later send a %UM_TIMETRAVEL_RUN message when
> - * the host can run again.
> + * interrupts); the time field contains the next requested runtime
> + * for consistency checks. The calendar must process this message and
> + * later send a %UM_TIMETRAVEL_RUN message when the host can run again.
Indentation got messed up here though.
johannes
_______________________________________________
linux-um mailing list
linux-um@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-um
