|
From: | Jan Kiszka |
Subject: | Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [Bug 599958] Re: Timedrift problems with Win7: hpet missing time drift fixups |
Date: | Sat, 03 Jul 2010 09:39:39 +0200 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686 (x86_64); de; rv:1.8.1.12) Gecko/20080226 SUSE/2.0.0.12-1.1 Thunderbird/2.0.0.12 Mnenhy/0.7.5.666 |
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? Jan
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |