Paul Brook wrote:
>> I suggested it because my original plan for the configuration file was
>> based on this syntax with a strong inspiration from the OpenFirmware
>> device tree. The idea was that the object name ("drive" here) had no
>> hardcoded meaning, except for some predefined object names i
Avi Kivity wrote:
> Fabrice Bellard wrote:
>>
>> I prefer:
>>
>> drive.file=foo.img
>> drive.if=scsi
>>
>
> That doesn't support multiple drives very well.
Right, I realized it afterwards !
I suggested it because my original plan for the c
Anthony Liguori wrote:
> One thought I had, is that it would be very nice to break up the -drive
> file=foo.img,if=scsi syntax within the config file. In general, I'm
> thinking something like:
>
> [drive]
> file=foo.img
> if=scsi
>
> or:
>
> drive {
> file=foo.img
> if=scsi
> }
>
> or e
Paul Brook wrote:
>>> I agree with the fact that ram_size should be 64 bit. Maybe each
>>> machine could test the value and emit an error message if it is too
>>> big. Maybe an uint64_t would be better though.
>> uint64_t is probably more reasonable. I wouldn't begin to know what the
>> appropriat
Anthony Liguori wrote:
> KVM supports more than 2GB of memory for x86_64 hosts. The following patch
> fixes a number of type related issues where int's were being used when they
> shouldn't have been. It also introduces CMOS support so the BIOS can build
> the appropriate e820 tables.
> [...]
>
Anthony Liguori wrote:
> This patch actually enables KVM support for QEMU. I apologize that it is so
> large but this was the only sane way to preserve bisectability.
>
> The goal of this patch is to add KVM support, but not to impact users when
> KVM isn't being used. It achieves this by using
Hi,
Some remarks:
- rename the option to -pcidevice.
- Remove the directory passthrough and put the file directly in hw/.
Rename the file to something more explicit such as pci_passthrough*
- Suppress the files passthrough.h and neo_pci_tree.h
- pt_init should be called only if there are real
Avi Kivity wrote:
> J. Mayer wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 2007-09-25 at 12:40 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Avi Kivity wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>I've got a remark about this: why this has to be added to the Qemu
>code ?
>Imho, all is needed is an im
