On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 2:47 AM, Cao,Bing Bu m...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
On 01/03/2012 09:12 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 12:15 PM, Dor Laordl...@redhat.com wrote:
On 01/03/2012 10:33 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 01:09:40PM +0100, Juan Quintela
On 01/03/2012 02:12 AM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
2/4 is on the list. It's adding the type infrastructure such that when
you do -device e1000, as far as QOM is concerned you're creating an
E1000 object which inherits from a PCIDevice, etc.
Yes, sorry, that was quite obvious. I was not sure about
On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 01:09:40PM +0100, Juan Quintela wrote:
Please send in any agenda items you are interested in covering.
Status of virtio drivers for Windows:
* Unsupported in community today
* Bugs languish on bug tracker/mailing list
* Risking a reputation of not supporting Windows
On 3 January 2012 01:14, Anthony Liguori anth...@codemonkey.ws wrote:
Let's separate out what a user *should* do from what a user *can* do.
A user *should* have a command line syntax that reflects something that
makes sense to them. For instance, qemu-system-arm --machine beaglebone
I don't
On 3 January 2012 10:26, Peter Maydell peter.mayd...@linaro.org wrote:
I don't think we even have syntax for 2 at the moment except for the
weird special case of -cpu foo.
It currently is quite common to e.g. use a versatilepb machine model
but switch the CPU for arm1176, cortex-a8 etc with
On 01/03/2012 10:33 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 01:09:40PM +0100, Juan Quintela wrote:
Please send in any agenda items you are interested in covering.
Status of virtio drivers for Windows:
* Unsupported in community today
Why?
* Bugs languish on bug
On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 12:15 PM, Dor Laor dl...@redhat.com wrote:
On 01/03/2012 10:33 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 01:09:40PM +0100, Juan Quintela wrote:
Please send in any agenda items you are interested in covering.
Status of virtio drivers for Windows:
*
On 01/03/2012 04:26 AM, Peter Maydell wrote:
On 3 January 2012 01:14, Anthony Liguorianth...@codemonkey.ws wrote:
Let's separate out what a user *should* do from what a user *can* do.
A user *should* have a command line syntax that reflects something that
makes sense to them. For instance,
Anthony,
Am 03.01.2012 02:04, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
On 01/02/2012 07:46 AM, Andreas Färber wrote:
Am 02.01.2012 13:09, schrieb Juan Quintela:
First of all, Happy New Year to everybody (even for the people whose
calendar is different O:-)
+1
Please send in any agenda items you are
On 3 January 2012 13:37, Anthony Liguori anth...@codemonkey.ws wrote:
For what you're getting at, you actually want to model the CPUs in QOM such
that you would have an ARM926 is-a ARMCPU is-a CPUCommon.
Then you could have the beagle machine have a linkARM926. If it always
has a single CPU,
On 01/03/2012 07:52 AM, Andreas Färber wrote:
Anthony,
Am 03.01.2012 02:04, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
On 01/02/2012 07:46 AM, Andreas Färber wrote:
Am 02.01.2012 13:09, schrieb Juan Quintela:
First of all, Happy New Year to everybody (even for the people whose
calendar is different O:-)
+1
On 01/03/2012 07:57 AM, Peter Maydell wrote:
On 3 January 2012 13:37, Anthony Liguorianth...@codemonkey.ws wrote:
For what you're getting at, you actually want to model the CPUs in QOM such
that you would have an ARM926 is-a ARMCPU is-a CPUCommon.
Then you could have the beagle machine have a
Am 03.01.2012 14:12, schrieb Stefan Hajnoczi:
On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 12:15 PM, Dor Laor dl...@redhat.com wrote:
There is a legal issue w/ WHQL drivers but self sign is not a probably and I
believe that's what we have today.
For a user anything other than first-class native drivers is a red
On 3 January 2012 14:02, Anthony Liguori anth...@codemonkey.ws wrote:
On 01/03/2012 07:57 AM, Peter Maydell wrote:
The CPU should always be a child of the board, surely, even if the user
might want to use a different one? That's just basic composition.
The links should be for the CPU has two
On Tue, 2012-01-03 at 13:12 +, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 12:15 PM, Dor Laor dl...@redhat.com wrote:
On 01/03/2012 10:33 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 01:09:40PM +0100, Juan Quintela wrote:
Please send in any agenda items you are interested in
On 01/03/2012 09:12 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 12:15 PM, Dor Laordl...@redhat.com wrote:
On 01/03/2012 10:33 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 01:09:40PM +0100, Juan Quintela wrote:
Please send in any agenda items you are interested in covering.
Hi
First of all, Happy New Year to everybody (even for the people whose
calendar is different O:-)
Please send in any agenda items you are interested in covering.
Thanks, Juan.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe kvm in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
Am 02.01.2012 13:09, schrieb Juan Quintela:
First of all, Happy New Year to everybody (even for the people whose
calendar is different O:-)
+1
Please send in any agenda items you are interested in covering.
QOM: If Anthony is available, I'd be interested in hearing an update on
the roadmap.
On 01/02/2012 02:46 PM, Andreas Färber wrote:
QOM: If Anthony is available, I'd be interested in hearing an update on
the roadmap. In particular,
* when can we expect to be able to model SoCs rather than CPUs? Will
this affect command line usage - are we going to have '-device
ti-tms570' rather
On 2 January 2012 13:46, Andreas Färber afaer...@suse.de wrote:
* when can we expect to be able to model SoCs rather than CPUs? Will
this affect command line usage - are we going to have '-device
ti-tms570' rather than '-cpu cortex-r4' then, or -cpu overriding the
container's default?
My
On 01/02/2012 07:46 AM, Andreas Färber wrote:
Am 02.01.2012 13:09, schrieb Juan Quintela:
First of all, Happy New Year to everybody (even for the people whose
calendar is different O:-)
+1
Please send in any agenda items you are interested in covering.
QOM: If Anthony is available, I'd be
On 01/02/2012 09:54 AM, Peter Maydell wrote:
On 2 January 2012 13:46, Andreas Färberafaer...@suse.de wrote:
* when can we expect to be able to model SoCs rather than CPUs? Will
this affect command line usage - are we going to have '-device
ti-tms570' rather than '-cpu cortex-r4' then, or -cpu
22 matches
Mail list logo
