From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:33709) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Tikh2-0008QM-CE for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 06:41:46 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Tikgw-0003jG-2j for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 06:41:40 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:47023) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Tikgv-0003j8-QY for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 06:41:33 -0500 Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 13:41:27 +0200 From: Gleb Natapov Message-ID: <20121212114127.GO11016@redhat.com> References: <1353880306-8004-1-git-send-email-mmogilvi_qemu@miniinfo.net> <20121211161955.GG29003@redhat.com> <20121212074641.GB3582@comcast.net> <20121212113636.GN11016@redhat.com> <50C86CB9.9020603@siemens.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <50C86CB9.9020603@siemens.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v7 00/10] i8254, i8259 and running Microport UNIX (ca 1987) List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Jan Kiszka Cc: Matthew Ogilvie , "Maciej W. Rozycki" , qemu-devel@nongnu.org On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 12:38:33PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote: > On 2012-12-12 12:36, Gleb Natapov wrote: > >> How about things like pit_get_out(), > >> pit_get_next_transition_time(), etc in qemu/hw/i8254_common.c? (If > >> not used when KVM is enabled, then why are they "common"?) What > >> are the implications if qemu and KVM implementations of such > >> functions disagree? > >> > > They are common because they work on device state that can comes from > > either QEMU device emulation or kvm device emulation. Why QEMU even touches > > KVM's device state other than for migration I do not know. Jan? > > PC speaker emulation. > If it produces a wrong sound during migration I think we can live with it. -- Gleb.