On 03/03/2011 11:13 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 03/03/2011 10:07 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
Does it fail every time? Have you tested if qemu.git also fails without
the patches? Then we may have a chance to bisect.
I plan to check this sometime between today and Monday.
One thing Avi can answer is:
On 03/03/2011 10:07 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
Does it fail every time? Have you tested if qemu.git also fails without
the patches? Then we may have a chance to bisect.
I plan to check this sometime between today and Monday.
One thing Avi can answer is: do you routinely test qemu.git with or
witho
On 03/03/2011 11:07 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>
> Well that's strange, since qemu-kvm now passes autotest (and this was
> qemu.git + patchset, not qemu-kvm).
>
Does it fail every time? Have you tested if qemu.git also fails without
the patches? Then we may have a chance to bisect.
I didn't check
On 2011-03-03 09:48, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 03/02/2011 09:42 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 04:36:34PM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
>>> On Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 08:03:42PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>> > On 2011-03-02 19:43, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
>>> > > On Tue, Mar 01,
On 03/02/2011 09:42 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 04:36:34PM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 08:03:42PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> > On 2011-03-02 19:43, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 01, 2011 at 02:35:56PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
>
On Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 04:36:34PM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 08:03:42PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> > On 2011-03-02 19:43, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 01, 2011 at 02:35:56PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> > >> On 02/28/2011 04:05 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > >>
On Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 08:03:42PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2011-03-02 19:43, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 01, 2011 at 02:35:56PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> >> On 02/28/2011 04:05 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >>> On 02/28/2011 01:13 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> >
>
> If there'
On 2011-03-02 19:43, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 01, 2011 at 02:35:56PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
>> On 02/28/2011 04:05 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>> On 02/28/2011 01:13 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
>
If there's a git tree of this I'll be happy to do an autotest run.
>>>
>>> Sure, it
On Tue, Mar 01, 2011 at 02:35:56PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 02/28/2011 04:05 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >On 02/28/2011 01:13 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> >>>
> >>
> >>If there's a git tree of this I'll be happy to do an autotest run.
> >
> >Sure, it's branch iothread-win32 of git://github.com/bonzi
On 02/28/2011 04:05 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 02/28/2011 01:13 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
If there's a git tree of this I'll be happy to do an autotest run.
Sure, it's branch iothread-win32 of git://github.com/bonzini/qemu.git
Fails on Fedora 9 i386 install, hangs right after "Performing pos
On 02/28/2011 01:13 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
If there's a git tree of this I'll be happy to do an autotest run.
Sure, it's branch iothread-win32 of git://github.com/bonzini/qemu.git
Paolo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majord...@vg
On 02/28/2011 01:57 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-02-28 11:10, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 02/28/2011 10:16 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
>> Why is that? uq/master is for kvm code, and this touches two or three
>> lines?
>
> iothread code is also going in via uq/master often. I started with
> uq/mas
On 2011-02-28 11:10, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 02/28/2011 10:16 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
>> Why is that? uq/master is for kvm code, and this touches two or three
>> lines?
>
> iothread code is also going in via uq/master often. I started with
> uq/master because I depended on Jan's changes which ar
On 02/28/2011 10:16 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
Why is that? uq/master is for kvm code, and this touches two or three
lines?
iothread code is also going in via uq/master often. I started with
uq/master because I depended on Jan's changes which are now upstream, I
have no problems with this going
On 02/28/2011 11:10 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
After gathering the comments about the two series I sent separately,
here is the full series for Win32 iothread support. It is based on
master, but as it touches (mostly, indeed) OS-independent parts it
is safer to get it in through uq/master.
Why
After gathering the comments about the two series I sent separately,
here is the full series for Win32 iothread support. It is based on
master, but as it touches (mostly, indeed) OS-independent parts it
is safer to get it in through uq/master.
Patches 1 to 5 are generic Win32 improvements, includ
16 matches
Mail list logo
