On 03/06/12 08:56, Alon Levy wrote:
On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 08:36:34AM +0100, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
Hi,
How would the parallel execution facility be opaque to the implementer?
screendump returns, screendump_async needs to pass a closure. You can
automatically generate any amount of code,
On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 09:10:00AM +0100, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
On 03/06/12 08:56, Alon Levy wrote:
On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 08:36:34AM +0100, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
Hi,
How would the parallel execution facility be opaque to the implementer?
screendump returns, screendump_async needs to
On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 08:36:34 +0100
Gerd Hoffmann kra...@redhat.com wrote:
Hi,
How would the parallel execution facility be opaque to the implementer?
screendump returns, screendump_async needs to pass a closure. You can
automatically generate any amount of code, but you can only have a
On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 09:24:27AM -0300, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 08:36:34 +0100
Gerd Hoffmann kra...@redhat.com wrote:
Hi,
How would the parallel execution facility be opaque to the implementer?
screendump returns, screendump_async needs to pass a closure. You
On 03/06/2012 07:16 AM, Alon Levy wrote:
On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 09:24:27AM -0300, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 08:36:34 +0100
Gerd Hoffmannkra...@redhat.com wrote:
Hi,
How would the parallel execution facility be opaque to the implementer?
screendump returns,
On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 07:51:29 -0600
Anthony Liguori anth...@codemonkey.ws wrote:
On 03/06/2012 07:16 AM, Alon Levy wrote:
On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 09:24:27AM -0300, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 08:36:34 +0100
Gerd Hoffmannkra...@redhat.com wrote:
Hi,
How would the
On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 10:53:42AM -0300, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 07:51:29 -0600
Anthony Liguori anth...@codemonkey.ws wrote:
On 03/06/2012 07:16 AM, Alon Levy wrote:
On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 09:24:27AM -0300, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 08:36:34 +0100
On 03/06/2012 08:23 AM, Alon Levy wrote:
On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 10:53:42AM -0300, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
So cutting off a part of the email is a good way to win arguments? cool
trick.
It doesn't work as well if you acknowledge that was the motivation ;-) (j/k)
I agree a reproducer is a
On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 07:51:29AM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 03/06/2012 07:16 AM, Alon Levy wrote:
On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 09:24:27AM -0300, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 08:36:34 +0100
Gerd Hoffmannkra...@redhat.com wrote:
Hi,
How would the parallel execution
On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 05:56:49PM +0200, Alon Levy wrote:
On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 07:51:29AM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 03/06/2012 07:16 AM, Alon Levy wrote:
On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 09:24:27AM -0300, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 08:36:34 +0100
Gerd
On 03/06/2012 09:56 AM, Alon Levy wrote:
On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 07:51:29AM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 03/06/2012 07:16 AM, Alon Levy wrote:
On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 09:24:27AM -0300, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 08:36:34 +0100
Gerd Hoffmannkra...@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 10:16:42AM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 03/06/2012 09:56 AM, Alon Levy wrote:
On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 07:51:29AM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 03/06/2012 07:16 AM, Alon Levy wrote:
On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 09:24:27AM -0300, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
On Tue, 06 Mar
On 03/06/2012 10:26 AM, Alon Levy wrote:
On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 10:16:42AM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 03/06/2012 09:56 AM, Alon Levy wrote:
On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 07:51:29AM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 03/06/2012 07:16 AM, Alon Levy wrote:
On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 09:24:27AM
Hi,
qemu is hung at:
main thread:
#0 read
Is qxl doing a blocking read? If so, that's a bug in qxl.
It used to do that, with the latest spice pull it is gone[1]. And this
fix is exactly what broke screendump.
Spice does lazy rendering on the server side to avoid burning cpu for
adds a handler for the following qmp screendump-async command.
graphics_console_init signature change required touching every user, but
no implementation of the new vga_hw_screen_dump_async_ptr is provided
in this patch.
Signed-off-by: Alon Levy al...@redhat.com
---
console.c|4
On 03/05/2012 08:16 AM, Alon Levy wrote:
adds a handler for the following qmp screendump-async command.
graphics_console_init signature change required touching every user, but
no implementation of the new vga_hw_screen_dump_async_ptr is provided
in this patch.
Signed-off-by: Alon
On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 08:33:06AM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 03/05/2012 08:16 AM, Alon Levy wrote:
adds a handler for the following qmp screendump-async command.
graphics_console_init signature change required touching every user, but
no implementation of the new
On 03/05/2012 04:33 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
async in QEMU doesn't mean generate a QMP event when you're done.
It should mean execute this closure when you finish (function pointer
+ opaque).
The QMP event should be dispatched from the closure such that the
screendump code doesn't have
On 03/05/2012 11:20 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 03/05/2012 04:33 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
async in QEMU doesn't mean generate a QMP event when you're done.
It should mean execute this closure when you finish (function pointer
+ opaque).
The QMP event should be dispatched from the closure such
On 03/05/2012 07:27 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 03/05/2012 11:20 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 03/05/2012 04:33 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
async in QEMU doesn't mean generate a QMP event when you're done.
It should mean execute this closure when you finish (function pointer
+ opaque).
The
On Mon, 05 Mar 2012 11:27:07 -0600
Anthony Liguori anth...@codemonkey.ws wrote:
On 03/05/2012 11:20 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 03/05/2012 04:33 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
async in QEMU doesn't mean generate a QMP event when you're done.
It should mean execute this closure when you finish
On Mon, 05 Mar 2012 19:29:14 +0200
Avi Kivity a...@redhat.com wrote:
On 03/05/2012 07:27 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 03/05/2012 11:20 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 03/05/2012 04:33 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
async in QEMU doesn't mean generate a QMP event when you're done.
It should
On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 02:31:42PM -0300, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
On Mon, 05 Mar 2012 11:27:07 -0600
Anthony Liguori anth...@codemonkey.ws wrote:
On 03/05/2012 11:20 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 03/05/2012 04:33 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
async in QEMU doesn't mean generate a QMP
On 03/05/2012 11:29 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 03/05/2012 07:27 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 03/05/2012 11:20 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 03/05/2012 04:33 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
async in QEMU doesn't mean generate a QMP event when you're done.
It should mean execute this closure when you
On 03/05/2012 08:09 PM, Alon Levy wrote:
On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 02:31:42PM -0300, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
On Mon, 05 Mar 2012 11:27:07 -0600
Anthony Liguori anth...@codemonkey.ws wrote:
On 03/05/2012 11:20 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 03/05/2012 04:33 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 03/05/2012 08:16 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
We're pretty close to being there. Luiz, about how long do you
think before we get there?
It's a pity to add new commands along the way.
It's more complicated than this unfortunately.
A client needs to be able to determine whether the
On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 08:17:52PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 03/05/2012 08:09 PM, Alon Levy wrote:
On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 02:31:42PM -0300, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
On Mon, 05 Mar 2012 11:27:07 -0600
Anthony Liguori anth...@codemonkey.ws wrote:
On 03/05/2012 11:20 AM, Avi Kivity
On 03/05/2012 12:22 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 03/05/2012 08:16 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
We're pretty close to being there. Luiz, about how long do you
think before we get there?
It's a pity to add new commands along the way.
It's more complicated than this unfortunately.
A client
On Mon, 5 Mar 2012 20:58:08 +0200
Alon Levy al...@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 08:17:52PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 03/05/2012 08:09 PM, Alon Levy wrote:
On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 02:31:42PM -0300, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
On Mon, 05 Mar 2012 11:27:07 -0600
Anthony
Hi,
How would the parallel execution facility be opaque to the implementer?
screendump returns, screendump_async needs to pass a closure. You can
automatically generate any amount of code, but you can only have a
single function implementation with longjmp/coroutine, or having a
saparate
On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 08:36:34AM +0100, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
Hi,
How would the parallel execution facility be opaque to the implementer?
screendump returns, screendump_async needs to pass a closure. You can
automatically generate any amount of code, but you can only have a
single
On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 08:36:34AM +0100, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
Hi,
How would the parallel execution facility be opaque to the implementer?
screendump returns, screendump_async needs to pass a closure. You can
automatically generate any amount of code, but you can only have a
single
32 matches
Mail list logo
