From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received-SPF: Pass (sender SPF authorized) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::241; helo=mail-it0-x241.google.com; envelope-from=ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org; receiver=edk2-devel@lists.01.org Received: from mail-it0-x241.google.com (mail-it0-x241.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::241]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ml01.01.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C20B320954BBE for ; Fri, 16 Mar 2018 06:19:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-it0-x241.google.com with SMTP id e98-v6so2110205itd.4 for ; Fri, 16 Mar 2018 06:25:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=zDcWDJ2nIjDLCT6ESsZgSw5ZiUCGp7q36/DuQ4luEGc=; b=Ncj32Xec3z/aJ/IN2+uDAzOz5lMNtK9o4BJ790TJrjhRoKEMc29cTxFsYX83mA+/hp F2SqrShtUZIsMT/F1dkBI+JZo4SY6r3rgsrRjJhOpcJv7IER3uy38SIIXQ+s4LBwlpsQ TOLVKMxwYS2O6VgICPExu6N1U2zT+XqX4jlvE= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=zDcWDJ2nIjDLCT6ESsZgSw5ZiUCGp7q36/DuQ4luEGc=; b=MmQ0IRj0qDjZCU4eoOulVNiaxfZxHuM4n4gSD0Q2DsBh48asws4MlJmca7lUmjnGu5 IL8cvg5XlpKESCT1ag+BjnC93lLUfEBbUrNzWg2uk7FlZJAr4hijHyPDneRRtwzTOkT3 J4jo/WfbQFU14mdU5tygqk8h6CtRdjqhPmrB3+iKEqWW9OhfdGAbWU34Ajstvrafazln 3qzntw7g6pJHpWRZVl8WlCcRoEAzYNT2G7n6HVZBGpvzTAoKPD6V3IaDZarde8CvKbYj aJjrNA9yW5+hEa+KAQ7Zt8kVFiLcXxcgdlcgFhHs2wyKNQi14iFV/NG0HMBfg3aI/N+2 wB/g== X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7FzuOKjmQ9gLXf1HwXz7HaubNJCHb0jJjB10n+Uqf9Y7Cst8TFZ r859lZ5UId21ELl8ot+1wCL1c4eT717ivMAeudjVdQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELv7FIOuWmMbONGCUB3DpxSPWS3bSqq4gpwh6hhH533mc+LpgABdGd8lu8kzOryTsd/+yNd8YwzO+2Z5oP68jcA= X-Received: by 2002:a24:5a05:: with SMTP id v5-v6mr2219961ita.138.1521206748259; Fri, 16 Mar 2018 06:25:48 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.107.18.137 with HTTP; Fri, 16 Mar 2018 06:25:47 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20180316114625.zbdwpqjskgpl3iwp@bivouac.eciton.net> References: <20180315102826.10517-1-ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> <20180315190148.gc74gfdnttvoy3i5@bivouac.eciton.net> <20180316114625.zbdwpqjskgpl3iwp@bivouac.eciton.net> From: Ard Biesheuvel Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2018 13:25:47 +0000 Message-ID: To: Leif Lindholm Cc: "edk2-devel@lists.01.org" , Laszlo Ersek , Marc Zyngier , Heyi Guo Subject: Re: [PATCH] ArmPkg/TimerDxe: remove workaround for KVM timer handling X-BeenThere: edk2-devel@lists.01.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: EDK II Development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2018 13:19:24 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On 16 March 2018 at 11:46, Leif Lindholm wrote: > On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 11:28:21AM +0000, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: >> On 15 March 2018 at 19:01, Leif Lindholm wrote: >> > On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 10:28:26AM +0000, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: >> >> When we first ported EDK2 to KVM/arm, we implemented a workaround for >> >> the quirky timer handling on the KVM side. This has been fixed in >> >> Linux commit f120cd6533d2 ("KVM: arm/arm64: timer: Allow the timer to >> >> control the active state") dated 23 June 2014, which was incorporated >> >> into Linux release 4.3. >> >> >> >> So almost 4 years later, it should be safe to drop this workaround on >> >> the EDK2 side. >> >> >> >> This reverts commit b1a633434ddc. >> >> >> >> Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.1 >> >> Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel >> > >> > I'm happy with this, with Marc's Ack. >> > Reviewed-by: Leif Lindholm >> > >> > However, if this can affect old kernels running in vms, could you ping >> > cross-distro@lists.linaro.org as well, so it doesn't catch anyone by >> > surprise? >> >> It will affects VMs running new firmware on ancient host kernels (and >> v4.2 *is* ancient when it comes to KVM/arm64 and server stuff imo) > > Oh, it is, but if we have > https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/edk2/+bug/1744754 > (Xenial guest), imagining people running a Zesty host isn't that much > more of a stretch (it's only EOL 2 months ago). > Xenial has v4.4, Zesty has v4.10, if I am not mistaken? Still doesn't hurt to cc cross-distro, obviously. Just sayin'