Avi Kivity wrote: > On 06/18/2009 10:04 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote: >> Hmm, stead of introducing a new pair of singe-purpose IOCTLs, why not >> add KVM_GET/SET_PIT2 which exchanges an extended kvm_pit_state2. And >> that struct should also include some flags field and enough padding to >> be potentially extended yet again in the future. In that case I see no >> problem having also a mode read-back interface. >> > > We'd only add kernel hpet if we were forced to (I imagine the same > applications/kernels that forced the PIT into the kernel will do the > same for HPET). > Answer and citation does not yet correlate for me. Could you comment more explicitly if your are fine with Beth's proposed interface, rather prefer something like my suggestion or even want something totally different? Thanks, Jan
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
