From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1IMlHX-0007Nn-Pv
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 19 Aug 2007 09:57:31 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1IMlHW-0007Ji-4P
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 19 Aug 2007 09:57:30 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IMlHV-0007JL-Iw
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 19 Aug 2007 09:57:29 -0400
Received: from mail.codesourcery.com ([65.74.133.4])
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps
	(TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <paul@codesourcery.com>) id 1IMlHV-0000L7-5a
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 19 Aug 2007 09:57:29 -0400
From: Paul Brook <paul@codesourcery.com>
Subject: Re: [kvm-devel] [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH 0/4] Rework alarm
	=?iso-8859-1?q?timer=09infrastrucure?= =?iso-8859-1?q?_-=09take2?=
Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 14:57:19 +0100
References: <20070817231149.544849769@gmail.com>
	<20070819131042.GA22798@mail.shareable.org>
	<46C84A16.7040305@qumranet.com>
In-Reply-To: <46C84A16.7040305@qumranet.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200708191457.21237.paul@codesourcery.com>
Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
Cc: kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net

> Yes, good thinking, but this should only be done if it actually impacts
> something.  Reducing overhead from 0.1% to 0.05% is not worthwhile if it
> introduces extra complexity.


If the overhead is that small, why are we touching this code in the first 
place?

Paul