From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:41711)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <gleb@redhat.com>) id 1SALne-0003VE-VE
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 21 Mar 2012 09:42:07 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <gleb@redhat.com>) id 1SALnc-0007Av-EP
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 21 Mar 2012 09:42:02 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:49466)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <gleb@redhat.com>) id 1SALnc-0007A0-67
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 21 Mar 2012 09:42:00 -0400
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 15:41:57 +0200
From: Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <20120321134157.GT22368@redhat.com>
References: <4F69CB66.8080903@siemens.com> <4F69D946.3040800@redhat.com>
	<4F69DA23.8070108@siemens.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4F69DA23.8070108@siemens.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH uq/master] kvm: Drop unused
	kvm_pit_in_kernel
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>
Cc: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>, Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>, kvm <kvm@vger.kernel.org>, qemu-devel <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>

On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 02:39:47PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2012-03-21 14:36, Avi Kivity wrote:
> > On 03/21/2012 02:36 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >> This is now implied by kvm_irqchip_in_kernel.
> >>
> >>
> > 
> > So we can't have -no-kvm-pit?
> > 
> > No huge loss, but unexpected.
> 
> See e81dda195556e72f8cd294998296c1051aab30a8.
> 
I am curious what is the reason for upstream to not supporting disabling the
in-kernel PIT separately?

--
			Gleb.