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

[Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@web.de>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1022 bytes --]

Blue Swirl wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 7:39 AM, Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@web.de> 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 I have withdrawn my objection.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.

Jan


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 257 bytes --]