From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] HPET interaction with in-kernel PIT (v6) Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 12:35:09 +0300 Message-ID: <4A34C44D.8020803@redhat.com> References: <1244771206-19872-1-git-send-email-eak@us.ibm.com> <1244771206-19872-5-git-send-email-eak@us.ibm.com> <4A34BA88.7060204@redhat.com> <4A34BE92.6010302@web.de> <4A34C060.8000100@redhat.com> <4A34C261.5000908@web.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Beth Kon , kvm@vger.kernel.org To: Jan Kiszka Return-path: Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:33344 "EHLO mx2.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750933AbZFNJfO (ORCPT ); Sun, 14 Jun 2009 05:35:14 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4A34C261.5000908@web.de> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Jan Kiszka wrote: > Unfortunate. But on the one hand, nothing technically prevents defining > the IOCTL base on existing kvm_pit_state, but passing down extended > kvm_pit_state2 if that negotiation took place. On the other hand, we are > not yet running out of IOCTL numbers... > Right, and we are not in any competition for most obfuscated interface yet (though we'd probably get an honourable mention if we were to apply). > However, I guess kvm_pit_state2 will also need some flags field and a > bit tail room for potential future extensions. > Yes, it's a common pattern in kvm. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function