On 2011-02-01 14:04, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> 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).
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
On 2011-01-31 22:51, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> When the QEMU_CLOCK_HOST clock was added, computation of its
> deadline was added to qemu_next_deadline, which is correct but
> incomplete.
>
> I noticed this by reading the very convoluted rules whereby
> qemu_next_deadline_dyntick is computed, which mi
