From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:47583) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1X1tTp-00012r-H0 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2014 04:32:03 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1X1tTh-0007mF-UX for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2014 04:31:57 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:54036) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1X1tTh-0007l2-FB for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2014 04:31:49 -0400 Message-ID: <53B271EE.4030308@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2014 10:31:42 +0200 From: Paolo Bonzini MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1402974463.7661.102.camel@pasglop> <1403001900.1614.10.camel@nilsson.home.kraxel.org> <1403003721.7661.148.camel@pasglop> <1403006267.1614.14.camel@nilsson.home.kraxel.org> <1403040734.7661.173.camel@pasglop> <1403090315.13406.3.camel@nilsson.home.kraxel.org> <1403096614.7661.208.camel@pasglop> <1403170570.22530.5.camel@nilsson.home.kraxel.org> <1403329021.4587.78.camel@pasglop> <1403403026.4587.108.camel@pasglop> <1404126876.24066.23.camel@nilsson.home.kraxel.org> <1404131521.29546.3.camel@pasglop> <1404202838.24066.52.camel@nilsson.home.kraxel.org> <53B270CD.7080907@suse.de> In-Reply-To: <53B270CD.7080907@suse.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] qemu VGA endian swap low level drawing changes List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Alexander Graf , Gerd Hoffmann , Benjamin Herrenschmidt Cc: Alexey Kardashevskiy , "qemu-devel@nongnu.org" Il 01/07/2014 10:26, Alexander Graf ha scritto: >> >>> Right. A quick fix would be to add a flag to force always using a shadow >>> surface and set it in cirrus ... I'm not sure anybody will notice the >>> performance difference. >> I suspect we can rip out hw cursor emulation and nobody will notice the >> difference either ... > > Very likely ;). Though I think we're better off keeping it around to > make sure we're still compatible with ancient guests (Windows 3.1 might > use it too). Making it slow however shouldn't make any difference at all. If you tell me what to look at, I legally own a Windows 98 CD (also NT4 but I have to dig it out) and can test it later this week. Paolo