On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 01:41:18PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2012-03-22 08:18, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 02:49:09PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >> On 2012-03-21 14:41, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >>> 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?
> >>
> >> It was considered no longer relevant:
> >> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.emulators.kvm.devel/85393
> >>
> > Hmm, may be we should think about this some more. If in the (not so far)
> > future we want to drop pit emulation from the kernel we may want to support
> > -no-kvm-pit to allow migration from old kernels to new one.
>
> That's not an issue. Both device models are compatible, and you can
> migrate between kernel_irqchip=on/off theses days with QEMU.
>
Cool. Including PIT lost tick compensation?
--
Gleb.
