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

[Gleb Natapov]

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 I have withdrawn my objection.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.

--
                        Gleb.