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.
> > >>
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 privil
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 subsystem
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
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 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 (need to finish por
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 Sat, 03 Oct 2009 12:04:57 +0200
Avi Kivity 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.
> >
> > Ther
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 infra
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 fo
On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 08:05:16 -0500
Anthony Liguori 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 09/30/09 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 r
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 6:59 PM, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger
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) support. [...]
>>
>> Do we r
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) support. [...]
>
> Do we really need coreboot to use the same init sequence? coreboot
> is fir
On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 17:03:23 +0200
Fred Leeflang wrote:
> 2009/9/30 Anthony Liguori
>
> > Luiz Capitulino wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 18:54:53 -0500
> >> Anthony Liguori wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> I think aiming for early to mid-December would give us roughly a 3 month
> >>> cycle and
Luiz Capitulino wrote:
On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 18:54:53 -0500
Anthony Liguori 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 that lasted only for ab
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 th
On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 08:41:23 +0200
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 ve
On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 18:54:53 -0500
Anthony Liguori 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 that lasted only for about a
> week. This i
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
(target-i3
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.
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 infrastru
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
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 f
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 a
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 shorten
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
27 matches
Mail list logo
