Hello,
2009/9/30 Anthony Liguori aligu...@us.ibm.com:
Hi,
Now that 0.11.0 is behind us, it's time to start thinking about 0.12.0.
o storage live migration
Sorry for a bit off topic. But, my special NBD server can do this
independently of VMM implementations.
See
On Wed, 2009-10-14 at 17:53 -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
So at this point, I think it's a mistake to include raw socket support.
If the goal is to improve networking usability such that it just works
as a root user, let's incorporate a default network script that creates
a bridge or
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 02:10:00PM -0700, Sridhar Samudrala wrote:
On Wed, 2009-10-14 at 17:50 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 04:19:17PM +0100, Jamie Lokier wrote:
Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 09:17:15AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 05:53:56PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
I would be much more inclined to consider
taking raw and improving the performance long term if guest-host
networking worked. This appears to be a fundamental limitation though
and I think it's something that will forever
On Thursday 08 October 2009, Anthony Liguori wrote:
Jens Osterkamp wrote:
On Wednesday 30 September 2009, Anthony Liguori wrote:
Please add to this list and I'll collect it all and post it somewhere.
What about Or Gerlitz' raw backend driver ? I did not see it go in yet, or
On Thu, Oct 08, 2009 at 09:21:04AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
Jens Osterkamp wrote:
On Wednesday 30 September 2009, Anthony Liguori wrote:
o VMState conversion -- I expect most of the pc target to be completed
o qdev conversion -- I hope that we'll get most of the pc target
Arnd Bergmann wrote:
There are two reasons why I think this backend is important:
- As an easy way to provide isolation between guests (private ethernet
port aggregator, PEPA) and external enforcement of network priviledges
(virtual ethernet port aggregator, VEPA) using the macvlan
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 08:53:55AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
Arnd Bergmann wrote:
There are two reasons why I think this backend is important:
- As an easy way to provide isolation between guests (private ethernet
port aggregator, PEPA) and external enforcement of network priviledges
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 03:09:28PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Thursday 08 October 2009, Anthony Liguori wrote:
Jens Osterkamp wrote:
On Wednesday 30 September 2009, Anthony Liguori wrote:
Please add to this list and I'll collect it all and post it somewhere.
What
Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
Looks like Or has abandoned it. I have an updated version which works
with new APIs, etc. Let me post it and we'll go from there.
I'm generally inclined to oppose the functionality as I don't think it
offers any advantages over the existing backends.
I
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 09:17:15AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
Looks like Or has abandoned it. I have an updated version which works
with new APIs, etc. Let me post it and we'll go from there.
I'm generally inclined to oppose the functionality as I don't
Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 09:17:15AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
Looks like Or has abandoned it. I have an updated version which works
with new APIs, etc. Let me post it and we'll go from there.
I'm generally inclined to oppose
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 04:19:17PM +0100, Jamie Lokier wrote:
Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 09:17:15AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
Looks like Or has abandoned it. I have an updated version which works
with new APIs, etc. Let me post it
On Wed, 2009-10-14 at 17:50 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 04:19:17PM +0100, Jamie Lokier wrote:
Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 09:17:15AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
Looks like Or has abandoned it. I have an
Sridhar Samudrala wrote:
Can't we bind the raw socket to the tap interface instead of the
physical interface and allow the bridge config to work.
But why use the raw interface instead of tap directly.
Let me summarize the discussion so far:
Raw sockets
Pros:
o User specifies a network
Jens Osterkamp wrote:
On Wednesday 30 September 2009, Anthony Liguori wrote:
o VMState conversion -- I expect most of the pc target to be completed
o qdev conversion -- I hope that we'll get most of the pc target
completely converted to qdev
o storage live migration
o switch to SeaBIOS
On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 12:04:57 +0200
Avi Kivity a...@redhat.com wrote:
On 10/01/2009 11:13 PM, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
If we're going to support the protocol for 0.12, I'd like to most of the
code merged by the end of October.
Four weeks.. Not so much time, but let's try.
On 10/05/2009 02:43 PM, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
Are you using a standard json parser with your test script? That's an
additional validation.
I'm using Python's json module, but I could run one of the checkers
listed in the json's page for each test, before the Python's module
kicks in.
On 10/01/2009 11:13 PM, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
If we're going to support the protocol for 0.12, I'd like to most of the
code merged by the end of October.
Four weeks.. Not so much time, but let's try.
There are two major issues that may delay QMP.
Firstly, we are still on the
Anthony Liguori さんは書きました:
Hi,
Now that 0.11.0 is behind us, it's time to start thinking about 0.12.0.
I'd like to do a few things different this time around. I don't think
the -rc process went very well as I don't think we got more testing out
of it. I'd like to shorten the timeline for
On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 08:05:16 -0500
Anthony Liguori aligu...@us.ibm.com wrote:
Avi Kivity wrote:
On 09/30/2009 01:54 AM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
Hi,
Now that 0.11.0 is behind us, it's time to start thinking about 0.12.0.
I'd like to do a few things different this time around. I don't
On 09/30/2009 01:54 AM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
Hi,
Now that 0.11.0 is behind us, it's time to start thinking about 0.12.0.
I'd like to do a few things different this time around. I don't think
the -rc process went very well as I don't think we got more testing
out of it. I'd like to
Anthony Liguori wrote:
[]
Here's a short list of things I expect to see for this release
(target-i386 centric). Please add or comment on items that you'd either
like to see in the release or are planning on working on.
[..]
o guest SMP support for KVM
Hmm. What is this, can you elaborate
On 09/30/2009 10:53 AM, Michael Tokarev wrote:
Anthony Liguori wrote:
[]
Here's a short list of things I expect to see for this release
(target-i386 centric). Please add or comment on items that you'd
either like to see in the release or are planning on working on.
[..]
o guest SMP support
Hi,
On 30.09.2009 01:54, Anthony Liguori wrote:
Now that 0.11.0 is behind us, it's time to start thinking about 0.12.0.
I'd also like to try to enumerate some features for this release.
Here's a short list of things I expect to see for this release
(target-i386 centric).
o switch to
Hi Isaku,
Isaku Yamahata wrote:
o newer chipset (which is based on Q35 chipset)
o multiple pci bus
o PCI express (MMCONFIG)
o PCI express hot plug (not acpi based)
o PCI express switch emulator
Although there is no PCIe emulated device at the moment,
this will be a fundamental
Amit Shah wrote:
On (Tue) Sep 29 2009 [18:54:53], Anthony Liguori wrote:
o multiport virtio-console support
Assuming we can get the kernel drivers straightened out, I think it's
certainly reasonable for 0.12.
--
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the
Avi Kivity wrote:
On 09/30/2009 01:54 AM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
Hi,
Now that 0.11.0 is behind us, it's time to start thinking about 0.12.0.
I'd like to do a few things different this time around. I don't
think the -rc process went very well as I don't think we got more
testing out of it.
Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
Hi,
On 30.09.2009 01:54, Anthony Liguori wrote:
Now that 0.11.0 is behind us, it's time to start thinking about 0.12.0.
I'd also like to try to enumerate some features for this release.
Here's a short list of things I expect to see for this release
On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 08:41:23 +0200
Avi Kivity a...@redhat.com wrote:
On 09/30/2009 01:54 AM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
Hi,
Now that 0.11.0 is behind us, it's time to start thinking about 0.12.0.
I'd like to do a few things different this time around. I don't think
the -rc process went
On (Wed) Sep 30 2009 [08:04:17], Anthony Liguori wrote:
Amit Shah wrote:
On (Tue) Sep 29 2009 [18:54:53], Anthony Liguori wrote:
o multiport virtio-console support
Assuming we can get the kernel drivers straightened out, I think it's
certainly reasonable for 0.12.
The kernel
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 08:03:20AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
Hi Isaku,
Isaku Yamahata wrote:
o newer chipset (which is based on Q35 chipset)
o multiple pci bus o PCI express (MMCONFIG)
o PCI express hot plug (not acpi based)
o PCI express switch emulator
Although there is no PCIe
Luiz Capitulino wrote:
On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 18:54:53 -0500
Anthony Liguori aligu...@us.ibm.com wrote:
I think aiming for early to mid-December would give us roughly a 3 month
cycle and would align well with some of the Linux distribution cycles.
I'd like to limit things to a single -rc
Amit Shah wrote:
On (Wed) Sep 30 2009 [08:04:17], Anthony Liguori wrote:
Amit Shah wrote:
On (Tue) Sep 29 2009 [18:54:53], Anthony Liguori wrote:
o multiport virtio-console support
Assuming we can get the kernel drivers straightened out, I think it's
certainly
On (Wed) Sep 30 2009 [09:47:22], Anthony Liguori wrote:
Amit Shah wrote:
On (Wed) Sep 30 2009 [08:04:17], Anthony Liguori wrote:
Amit Shah wrote:
On (Tue) Sep 29 2009 [18:54:53], Anthony Liguori wrote:
o multiport virtio-console support
Assuming we can get the kernel
On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 17:03:23 +0200
Fred Leeflang fr...@dutchie.org wrote:
2009/9/30 Anthony Liguori aligu...@us.ibm.com
Luiz Capitulino wrote:
On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 18:54:53 -0500
Anthony Liguori aligu...@us.ibm.com wrote:
I think aiming for early to mid-December would give us
Anthony Liguori aligu...@us.ibm.com wrote:
Luiz Capitulino wrote:
On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 18:54:53 -0500
Anthony Liguori aligu...@us.ibm.com wrote:
I think aiming for early to mid-December would give us roughly a 3
month cycle and would align well with some of the Linux
distribution cycles.
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 6:59 PM, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger
c-d.hailfinger.devel.2...@gmx.net wrote:
On 30.09.2009 15:07, Anthony Liguori wrote:
Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
However, to run coreboot on Qemu with the same init sequence as on
simplified real hardware, we need Cache-as-RAM (CAR)
On 09/30/09 16:45, Anthony Liguori wrote:
One reason I branch is because some people care a bit less about
releases so it makes the process non-disruptive to them. If the other
maintainers agreed though, I would certainly like to have the master
branch essentially frozen for the week before the
Hi,
Now that 0.11.0 is behind us, it's time to start thinking about 0.12.0.
I'd like to do a few things different this time around. I don't think
the -rc process went very well as I don't think we got more testing out
of it. I'd like to shorten the timeline for 0.12.0 a good bit. The
0.10
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 6:54 PM, Anthony Liguori aligu...@us.ibm.com wrote:
Now that 0.11.0 is behind us, it's time to start thinking about 0.12.0.
I'd like to do a few things different this time around. I don't think the
-rc process went very well as I don't think we got more testing out of
Dustin Kirkland wrote:
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 6:54 PM, Anthony Liguori aligu...@us.ibm.com wrote:
Now that 0.11.0 is behind us, it's time to start thinking about 0.12.0.
I'd like to do a few things different this time around. I don't think the
-rc process went very well as I don't think
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 06:54:53PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
Hi,
Now that 0.11.0 is behind us, it's time to start thinking about 0.12.0.
I'd like to do a few things different this time around. I don't think
the -rc process went very well as I don't think we got more testing out
of
On (Tue) Sep 29 2009 [18:54:53], Anthony Liguori wrote:
Hi,
Now that 0.11.0 is behind us, it's time to start thinking about 0.12.0.
I'd like to do a few things different this time around. I don't think
the -rc process went very well as I don't think we got more testing out
of it. I'd
44 matches
Mail list logo
