Re: [Qemu-devel] qemu-kvm upstreaming: Do we need -no-kvm-pit and -no-kvm-pit-reinjection semantics?

[Jan Kiszka]

On 2012-01-20 11:39, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> Usability. Users should not have to care about individual tick-based
>> clocks. They care about "my OS requires lost ticks compensation, yes or no".
> 
> Conceivably an OS may require lost ticks compensation depending on
> boot options given to the OS telling it which clock sources to use.
> 
> However I like the idea of a global default, which you can set and all
> the devices inherit it unless overridden in each device.

OK, this sounds like a good option: add per-device control but also
introduce global default. The latter can still be done later on.

The only problem is that we should already come up with the right,
generic control switch template. "reinject=on|off", as I did it for now
for the PIT, is definitely not optimal.

Jan

-- 
Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT T DE IT 1
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux