From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:37573) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UUHdx-0001RZ-7N for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 10:23:01 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UUHdr-00014m-KP for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 10:22:57 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:21351) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UUHdr-00014d-Bf for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 10:22:51 -0400 Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 10:22:47 -0400 From: Luiz Capitulino Message-ID: <20130422102247.3d986bbf@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <87vc7ewtmm.fsf@codemonkey.ws> References: <1366346658-4680-1-git-send-email-akong@redhat.com> <5172BD04.2050504@redhat.com> <20130422073252.GC1938@t430s.nay.redhat.com> <20130422080935.GA29975@t430s.nay.redhat.com> <517503E0.1080906@redhat.com> <20130422084350.17b2941b@redhat.com> <51753505.9020107@redhat.com> <87vc7ewtmm.fsf@codemonkey.ws> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] monitor: intervally send down events to guest in hold time List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Anthony Liguori Cc: pkrempa@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, kraxel@redhat.com, Paolo Bonzini , Amos Kong , zhwang@redhat.com On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 09:02:41 -0500 Anthony Liguori wrote: > Paolo Bonzini writes: > > > Il 22/04/2013 14:43, Luiz Capitulino ha scritto: > >>> > > >>> > You're right. The typematic delay/rate is implemented within the i8042 > >>> > keyboard microcontroller (QEMU does not implement that register). > >>> > > >>> > It is possible that software ignores interrupts for a key that is > >>> > already down, and reimplements autorepeat in software, but your patch is > >>> > correct. > >> But isn't this patch the equivalent of repeatedly pressing and releasing a > >> key? Shouldn't this be implemented at a lower-level layer like the input > >> subsystem? > > > > No, this patch is implementing what the microcontroller does, i.e. 10 > > presses + 1 release. I'm not sure it is the right level to do it (the > > rate/delay should be at least customizable from the board), but the > > logic is right and if someone else needs more configurability we can add > > it later. > > Regardless, this is a compat breaker IMHO. This is a dramatically > different semantic behavior. > > What's the use-case here? This was reported by Zhenfeng Wang, my impression is that Zhenfeng had the (resonable) expectation that this would work like in bare metal, but I don't think there's a specific use-case behind here. Am I correct Zhenfeng?