From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=43706 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PkFu9-0002NI-LI
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 01 Feb 2011 08:04:23 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1PkFu8-0002zj-Ej
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 01 Feb 2011 08:04:21 -0500
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:35115)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1PkFu8-0002z7-38
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 01 Feb 2011 08:04:20 -0500
Message-ID: <4D4804D0.60300@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2011 14:04:16 +0100
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1296510679-12268-1-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com>
	<1296510679-12268-3-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com>
	<4D480444.6070801@siemens.com>
In-Reply-To: <4D480444.6070801@siemens.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH 2/3] Correct alarm deadline computation
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.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: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>
Cc: "qemu-devel@nongnu.org" <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>

On 02/01/2011 02:01 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Looks good to me. I guess this applies without the first patch? Then it
> should go in (unless you are working on a new version for 1/3).

It's wrong without the first patch (micro instead of nanoseconds). 
However, I read Anthony's message as a suggestion rather than a rejection.

Paolo