On Friday 11 September 2009, Anthony Liguori wrote: > malc wrote: > > And generalizations are always true. Anyhow, i'm explicitly against the > > patch, so first obtain the express acknowledgment from the leaders, > > otherwise i'll revert it should it go in. > > I'm adding the following patch to Juan's series. The result is that > get_ticks_per_sec() should be optimized to a literal value. The result > being that uses of it are faster than they were before (not it should > matter).
Having this as a function/variable is completely misleading. It is and always will be 1000000000. You'd be better off using QEMU_TIMER_BASE directly. Paul
