Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [Bug 599958] Re: Timedrift problems with Win7: hpet missing time drift fixups

[Jan Kiszka]

Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 05, 2010 at 08:39:38AM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> Paul Brook wrote:
>>>> Blue Swirl wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 7:39 AM, Jan Kiszka <address@hidden> wrote:
>>>>>> Paul Brook wrote:
>>>>>>>> I really see no tangible objection to Jan's patches.  They don't
>>>>>>>> impact any other code.  They don't inhibit flexibility in the
>>>>>>>> infrastructure. You might consider it to be a "hack" but so what. 
>>>>>>>> QEMU is filled with hacks.  It would be useless without them because
>>>>>>>> there would be very little code.
>>>>>>> I object strongly to anything that makes qemu_irq a message passing
>>>>>>> API. if you want message passing then you should not be using
>>>>>>> qemu_irq.
>>>>>> Blueswirl objected to the straightforward return-value approach I first
>>>>>> posted. You seems to be more open towards this, right? Still looks like
>>>>>> I cannot make you both happy at the same time. So what to do?
>>>>> I have withdrawn my objection. We can do message passing with some
>>>>> different API later, for simple coalescing needs the return value
>>>>> approach is enough.
>>>> Great! I'll respin my patches ASAP.
>>> Note that I still have some concerns over the semantics of that API.
>>> I believe this should be fundamentally state based, not event based.
>> For the caller of qemu_set_irq, it will be like that.
>>
> Unfortunately just having qemu_set_irq() return value is not enough to
> fix timedrift problem for all Windows. For some of them you need to know
> _which_ CPU accepted IRQ.

Return values:
 < 0    - no state change, specifically due to masking or latching
 >= 0   - first CPU (lowest index) on which a state change was achieved

Sufficient?

Jan

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature