From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=45180 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PkFwq-0003kv-09 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 01 Feb 2011 08:07:09 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PkFwo-0003cr-Jc for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 01 Feb 2011 08:07:07 -0500 Received: from goliath.siemens.de ([192.35.17.28]:28361) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PkFwo-0003c2-5u for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 01 Feb 2011 08:07:06 -0500 Message-ID: <4D480575.2090605@siemens.com> Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2011 14:07:01 +0100 From: Jan Kiszka MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1296510679-12268-1-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com> <1296510679-12268-3-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com> <4D480444.6070801@siemens.com> <4D4804D0.60300@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <4D4804D0.60300@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH 2/3] Correct alarm deadline computation List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Paolo Bonzini Cc: "qemu-devel@nongnu.org" On 2011-02-01 14:04, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 02/01/2011 02:01 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote: >> Looks good to me. I guess this applies without the first patch? Then it >> should go in (unless you are working on a new version for 1/3). > > It's wrong without the first patch (micro instead of nanoseconds). > However, I read Anthony's message as a suggestion rather than a rejection. > Yes, it's probably a better idea anyway to do this stepwise. Jan -- Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT T DE IT 1 Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux