On 13.01.2026 16:32, Oleksii Kurochko wrote: > On 1/8/26 11:43 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 24.12.2025 18:03, Oleksii Kurochko wrote: >>> vtimer uses internal Xen timer: initialize it on the pcpu the vcpu is >>> running on, rather than the processor that it's creating the vcpu. >> This doesn't look to describe anything this patch does. > > Hm, and why not?
Because this patch doesn't initialize any timer. The only timer-related call I see is one to migrate_timer(). > In vcpu_vtimer_init() we're initializing timer (it was incorrect to use > "internal Xen timer" though) on CPU is stored in vcpu->processor by calling > init_timier(). > > I will update this part then to: > Initialize the timer contained in|struct vtimer| by calling|init_timer()|. But you don't call that function. (Nor is this, btw, a useful sentence to have in a patch description. May I suggest that you read a fair number of in particular Andrew's or Roger's patch descriptions, to get a feel for what wants saying and what doesn't need to be said? In the case above: How else could you plausibly initialize that timer? Hence the latter part of the sentence is largely meaningless. Plus - is leaving the field uninitialized a plausible option? IOW you're merely stating the obvious anyway. Sadly, and I'm sorry to have to say that, this carries through many of your patch descriptions: You mechanically state what is being done, when really the thinking behind what you're doing and, often, further plans would be relevant to call out.) Jan
