From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paolo Bonzini Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] qemu-kvm upstreaming: Do we need -no-kvm-pit and -no-kvm-pit-reinjection semantics? Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 13:00:32 +0100 Message-ID: References: <4F17D56F.9090309@siemens.com> <20120119172532.GC11381@amt.cnet> <4F1854F9.6030400@siemens.com> <20120119175300.GE11381@amt.cnet> <4F185A88.5030904@siemens.com> <20120120101441.GA31499@amt.cnet> <4F194063.60307@siemens.com> <20120120103908.GT7180@jl-vm1.vm.bytemark.co.uk> <4F194C57.2030404@siemens.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org To: kvm@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]:44541 "EHLO lo.gmane.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750952Ab2ATMAp (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Jan 2012 07:00:45 -0500 Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RoD9A-0000Jm-Eq for kvm@vger.kernel.org; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 13:00:44 +0100 Received: from 93-34-200-238.ip51.fastwebnet.it ([93.34.200.238]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 13:00:44 +0100 Received: from pbonzini by 93-34-200-238.ip51.fastwebnet.it with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 13:00:44 +0100 In-Reply-To: <4F194C57.2030404@siemens.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 01/20/2012 12:13 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote: > OK, this sounds like a good option: add per-device control but also > introduce global default. The latter can still be done later on. > > The only problem is that we should already come up with the right, > generic control switch template. "reinject=on|off", as I did it for now > for the PIT, is definitely not optimal. What about adding suboptions to -clock (like driftfix we have for -rtc)?