From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:51758) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SunuM-0002L1-TJ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 27 Jul 2012 13:01:06 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SunuL-00007r-WD for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 27 Jul 2012 13:00:58 -0400 Message-ID: <5012C933.5060207@web.de> Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 19:00:35 +0200 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Andreas_F=E4rber?= MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <4FD6FCCE.8080807@web.de> In-Reply-To: <4FD6FCCE.8080807@web.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] qemu_rearm_alarm_timer: do not call rearm if the next deadline is INT64_MAX List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Anthony Liguori Cc: Stefano Stabellini , Stefan Hajnoczi , qemu-stable@nongnu.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Stefan Weil , Paolo Bonzini , Karl-Michael Schindler Am 12.06.2012 10:24, schrieb Andreas Färber: > Am 29.05.2012 15:35, schrieb Stefano Stabellini: >> qemu_rearm_alarm_timer partially duplicates the code in >> qemu_next_alarm_deadline to figure out if it needs to rearm the timer. >> If it calls qemu_next_alarm_deadline, it always rearms the timer even if >> the next deadline is INT64_MAX. >> >> This patch simplifies the behavior of qemu_rearm_alarm_timer and removes >> the duplicated code, always calling qemu_next_alarm_deadline and only >> rearming the timer if the deadline is less than INT64_MAX. >> >> Signed-off-by: Stefano Stabellini > > Tested-by: Andreas Färber Ping! Can the patch please be applied? Note: Patchwork apparently got confused by the later follow-up inline patches - only the original patch is needed. Also cc'ing qemu-stable for stable-1.1. Andreas