[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] timer.h: Provide better monotonic time
From: |
Paolo Bonzini |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] timer.h: Provide better monotonic time |
Date: |
Mon, 5 Jun 2017 11:27:25 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.1.0 |
On 02/06/2017 14:24, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 18 April 2017 at 20:18, Pranith Kumar <address@hidden> wrote:
>> Tested and confirmed that the stretch i386 debian qcow2 image on a
>> raspberry pi 2 works.
>>
>> Fixes: LP#: 893208 <https://bugs.launchpad.net/qemu/+bug/893208/>
>> Signed-off-by: Pranith Kumar <address@hidden>
>> ---
>> include/qemu/timer.h | 5 ++---
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/qemu/timer.h b/include/qemu/timer.h
>> index 8a1eb74839..1b518bca30 100644
>> --- a/include/qemu/timer.h
>> +++ b/include/qemu/timer.h
>> @@ -1020,10 +1020,9 @@ static inline int64_t cpu_get_host_ticks(void)
>> /* The host CPU doesn't have an easily accessible cycle counter.
>> Just return a monotonically increasing value. This will be
>> totally wrong, but hopefully better than nothing. */
>> -static inline int64_t cpu_get_host_ticks (void)
>> +static inline int64_t cpu_get_host_ticks(void)
>> {
>> - static int64_t ticks = 0;
>> - return ticks++;
>> + return get_clock();
>> }
>> #endif
>
> Hmm, it looks like this patch got lost. Paolo, did you want to
> give it a reviewed-by? From the discussion on v1 it sounded
> like you had the best grip on the timer code ;-)
Sure:
Reviewed-by: Paolo Bonzini <address@hidden>
> (Does the comment on the function need updating ?)
Apart from "totally", it's still pretty correct. :)
Thanks,
Paolo