For some reason the monitor option is included twice in this
datastructure. Probably a mistake during a merge. Patch also available at:
http://etud.epita.fr/~bevand_m/pub/kvm-remove-duplicate-monitor-option.patch
Signed-off-by: Marc Bevand m.bevand at gmail.com
diff --git a/qemu/vl.c b/qemu
Avi Kivity avi at qumranet.com writes:
This release was cooking for far too long, and as a result there are
plenty of changes.
Excellent news !
Quick question: when will you merge the recent qemu-img.c changes
(qemu svn rev 4672) ?
-marc
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
Jamie Lokier jamie at shareable.org writes:
As you see from the subject, I'm getting qcow2 corruption.
I have a Windows 2000 guest which boots and runs fine in kvm-72, fails
with a blue-screen indicating file corruption errors in kvm-73 through
to kvm-83 (the latest), and succeeds if I
On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 8:23 AM, Jamie Lokier ja...@shareable.org wrote:
Marc.. this is quite a serious bug you've reported. Is there a
reason you didn't report it earlier?
Because I only started hitting that bug a couple weeks ago after
having upgraded to a buggy kvm version.
Is there a
On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 2:28 PM, Dor Laor dl...@redhat.com wrote:
Both qcow2 and vmdk have the ability to keep 'external' snapshots.
I know but they don't implement one feature I cited: clones, or
writable snapshots, which I would like implemented with support for
deduplication. Base images /
On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 2:57 AM, Gleb Natapov g...@redhat.com wrote:
I am not able to reproduce this. After more then hundred boot linux; generate
disk io; quit loops all I've got is an image with 7 leaked blocks and
couple of filesystem corruptions that were fixed by fsck.
The type of
On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 3:46 AM, Marc Bevand m.bev...@gmail.com wrote:
Other factors you might consider when trying to reproduce: [...]
And the probability of that bug occuring seems less than 1% (I only
witnessed 6 or 7 occurences out of about a thousand shutdown events).
Also, contrary
Oliver Rath rath68 at web.de writes:
Im looking for an abillity seeing vt-capability of Intel-processors by
there name :-/
I.e. T7200 has vt, T3400 has not. Exists a rule for the naming scheme
seeing vt-capability? Alternatively, exists a matrix anywhere in the net
for this?
Browse
Arnd Bergmann arnd at arndb.de writes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Core_2_microprocessors is quite
good here. As a rule of thumb, anything higher than 6000 will have VT,
anything below 6000 will not. Interesting exceptions are
Doesn't have VT: E7300, Q8200, Q8400, E8190
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 6:07 AM, Avi Kivity a...@redhat.com wrote:
Marc Bevand wrote:
This is very wrong:
- none of the Pentium, Celeron, Atom processors, even the latest ones,
come with VT
According to processorfinder, 3 out of the 8 Atoms come with VT. Some
Pentium Ds also do. Maybe
10 matches
Mail list logo
