>>> On 04.07.16 at 17:39, <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> wrote:
> On 20/06/16 16:20, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> On 20.06.16 at 16:32, <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> wrote:
>>> On 15/06/16 11:28, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/time.c
>>>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/time.c
>>>> @@ -1358,6 +1358,24 @@ static void time_calibration(void *unuse
>>>> &r, 1);
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> +void __init clear_tsc_cap(unsigned int feature)
>>>> +{
>>>> + void (*rendezvous_fn)(void *) = time_calibration_std_rendezvous;
>>> This should read time_calibration_rendezvous_fn rather than assuming
>>> time_calibration_std_rendezvous.
>>>
>>> Otherwise, there is a risk that it could be reset back to
>>> time_calibration_std_rendezvous.
>> But that's the purpose: We may need to switch back.
>
> Under what circumstances could we ever move from re-syncing back to not
> re-syncing?
verify_tsc_reliability() may result in X86_FEATURE_TSC_RELIABLE
getting cleared. That's an initcall, which means it runs after
init_xen_time(), and hence after the rendezvous function got
established initially.
Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
