On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 10:53:53 +0200, Martin Kletzander wrote: > On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 10:08:58AM +0200, Peter Krempa wrote: > >On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 17:43:05 +0200, Martin Kletzander wrote: > >> On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 05:26:01PM +0200, Peter Krempa wrote: > >> >On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 16:59:08 +0200, Andrea Bolognani wrote: ... > >> >And just conditionally call this when the > >> >QEMU_CAPS_RTC_RESET_REINJECTION is present and not in an architecture > >> >specific way. > >> > > >> >By this you get rid of the arch specific hackery. > >> > > >> > >> But on x86 we don't even want to call the SetTime command when we > >> cannot reset the rtc reinjection. On ppc there is no reinjection > >> being done, hence nothing to reset. > > > >Well I don't think that the missing reinjection request should be a hard > >requirement on x86 since the guest can modify time independently and in > >that case the reinjection command won't be even issued. The guest agent > >command is technically a guest issued time change too, so there's only > >the added bonus that we'd reset the interrupt backlog. One slight issue > >is that libvirt does not allow to reset the interrupt backlog while not > >setting the time though. > > > > The implementer of the check might remember more reasons for arguing > on this, let him shed the light into this discussion. Michal? > > Anyway, this is broken all the way because the command also makes > sense only with some particular timers and their settins, not with all > of them. In that case it would make more sense to have the interrupt reinjection reset as a separate option or it to be enabled with a flag. > > >Even if we decide that the check for the existance of the command should > >be arch-specific and should report error, the actual place where the > >command is called should be made dependant on the presence of the > >command rather than the ARCH check, so that it does not need to be > >modified once it's implemented somewhere else. > > > > I don't quite catch your drift here. If you mean that the second > condition added should be based on virQEMUCapsGet(), then I agree. Yes that was my intent. The actual call should be based on the capability. Sanity checks that are arch specific should be present before. Peter
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list