From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1Jt9Qa-0001Lq-9j
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 05 May 2008 18:45:00 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1Jt9QY-0001L3-Lu
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 05 May 2008 18:44:59 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=54458 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Jt9QY-0001Kw-G5
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 05 May 2008 18:44:58 -0400
Received: from py-out-1112.google.com ([64.233.166.176])
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <anthony@codemonkey.ws>) id 1Jt9QY-00075U-6b
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 05 May 2008 18:44:58 -0400
Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id u52so1672826pyb.10
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Mon, 05 May 2008 15:44:57 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <481F8DE5.9040905@codemonkey.ws>
Date: Mon, 05 May 2008 17:44:53 -0500
From: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [4341] qemu: generate signals on tap I/O
References: <E1Jt8Cq-0007Qs-U7@cvs.savannah.gnu.org>	<481F84F3.6060505@flac.kalibalik.dk>
	<481F86F3.4080007@aurel32.net> <481F8D57.40500@flac.kalibalik.dk>
In-Reply-To: <481F8D57.40500@flac.kalibalik.dk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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: Aurelien Jarno <aurelien@aurel32.net>

Anders wrote:
> Aurelien Jarno wrote:
>
>> That's why I reverted that commit, it was for my local tree only, I
>> committed it accidentally (along with a few other patches).
>
> Ah, okay. I only read the subject of your reverts, which did not 
> mention 4341.
>
>>> I posted a more complete implementation a few weeks ago, anything wrong
>>> with it?
>>>
>>> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.emulators.qemu/24567
>>
>> People saying it is not the way to go, and I have still haven't decided
>> myself if it is a correct solution or not.
>>
>
> The current code is also not a correct solution.
>
> Well, I will just keep it in my local tree.

You're seeing improvement with normal QEMU?  Can you please post a 
description of what you're seeing improve with SIGIO.  SIGIO should 
really only slow things down.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori

>
> Cheers,
> Anders.
>
>