From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2][RFC] Kernel changes for HPET legacy mode (v7) Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 12:24:41 +0300 Message-ID: <4A3F4DD9.5050902@redhat.com> References: <1245329246-17526-1-git-send-email-eak@us.ibm.com> <1245329246-17526-3-git-send-email-eak@us.ibm.com> <4A3A8FC0.1000606@web.de> <4A3F4739.7070904@redhat.com> <4A3F4B6E.2050301@web.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; 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]:49848 "EHLO mx2.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753575AbZFVJXw (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Jun 2009 05:23:52 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4A3F4B6E.2050301@web.de> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 06/22/2009 12:14 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote: >>> Hmm, stead of introducing a new pair of singe-purpose IOCTLs, why not >>> add KVM_GET/SET_PIT2 which exchanges an extended kvm_pit_state2. And >>> that struct should also include some flags field and enough padding to >>> be potentially extended yet again in the future. In that case I see no >>> problem having also a mode read-back interface. >>> >>> >> We'd only add kernel hpet if we were forced to (I imagine the same >> applications/kernels that forced the PIT into the kernel will do the >> same for HPET). >> >> > > Answer and citation does not yet correlate for me. > Misquote. I meant to reply to your 'Is it planned to add in-kernel hpet support?' question. Must be early in the morning in some timezone. > Could you comment more explicitly if your are fine with Beth's proposed > interface, rather prefer something like my suggestion or even want > something totally different? > GET/SET PIT2 looks like the best choice to me, at least until I find whoever designed the HPET/PIT interdependency and make him take it back. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function