On 10/18/2011 04:10 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote: > On 2011-10-18 16:08, Avi Kivity wrote: > > On 10/18/2011 04:05 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote: > >> On 2011-10-18 16:00, Avi Kivity wrote: > >>> On 09/30/2011 01:31 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote: > >>>> This is conceptually cleaner and will allow us to drop the nographic > >>>> timer. Moreover, it will be mandatory to fully exploit future per-device > >>>> coalesced MMIO rings. > >>>> > >>> > >>> Appears to break winxp installation - the guest enters an infinite > >>> bitblt loop. Trying to find out why. > >> > >> Hmm, maybe there are side effects in certain modes that actually > >> disallow coalescing. > >> > > > > That's true for sure, but flushing the buffer should never be wrong. > > Err, you mean we are not flushing "too often"?
No, I don't know what the exact problem is. What I mean is that an extra flush should never hurt; a missing flush degrades the user experience but shouldn't cause the infinite loops I'm seeing. > I was under the > impression winxp is missing our periodic flushes. Do things work again > when you do not flush at all? This takes a while to reproduce, let me talk to gdb for a bit. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
