On 23/09/2016 11:17, Alexander Graf wrote: >> > >> > On the other hand, what happens if you run new QEMU with old userspace? >> > With user_timer_pending you'd get an infinite stream of vmexits the >> > first time the timer fires, wouldn't you? Whereas if you keep it in the >> > kernel, userspace would simply not get the interrupt (because it doesn't >> > know about kernel_timer_pending) and think it got a spurious vmexit. >> > The kernel's IRQ would stay masked and everything would just (not) work >> > like before your patch? > Yes, we'd definitely stay more compatible by tracking it only in the > kernel. I'm not fully convinced that it's the better interface, but > since both Christoffer and you seem to choke on that part, I'll give it > a stab ;). Cool! FWIW my suggestion for kernel_timer_pending's name would be timer_irq_level (nicely matching timer->irq.level in the kernel). Paolo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
