Am Thu, 1 Nov 2007 15:24:37 +0200
schrieb Felipe Contreras [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I'm also interested in this but so far I've not been able to make it
work.
Perhaps this would help:
http://lists.scratchbox.org/pipermail/scratchbox-devel/2007-October/000349.html
Looks interesting. But for the
CVSROOT:/sources/qemu
Module name:qemu
Changes by: Jocelyn Mayer j_mayer 07/11/05 13:01:41
Modified files:
. : host-utils.c
Log message:
Code used by the linux-user targets should not use vl.h.
Include exec.h instead.
CVSWeb URLs:
On Sat, 2007-11-03 at 01:18 +, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
J. Mayer wrote:
[snip]
It restricts the letter to the ones historically allowed by Qemu, not to
anything specific to any architecture or hw platform. What I like in my
implementation, compared to the strchr..., is that it
CVSROOT:/sources/qemu
Module name:qemu
Changes by: Jocelyn Mayer j_mayer 07/11/05 13:16:24
Modified files:
. : host-utils.h
Log message:
Fix muls64 prototype to match the actual implementation.
CVSWeb URLs:
CVSROOT:/sources/qemu
Module name:qemu
Changes by: Thiemo Seufer ths 07/11/05 13:27:21
Modified files:
. : configure
Log message:
Add -lpthread flag.
CVSWeb URLs:
http://cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/qemu/configure?cvsroot=qemur1=1.166r2=1.167
This is the remaining bit of s390 host support code from your earlier
patch. Could you check if this bit is still needed?
Also, if it does something useful, I suspect that it is incomplete.
gen_setcc duplicates the same logic, wouldn't it need to stay in sync?
Thiemo
---
* Thomas Bleher [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-11-01 16:55]:
* Thiemo Seufer [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-10-31 17:14]:
Thomas Bleher wrote:
* Thiemo Seufer [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-10-31 13:54]:
Thomas Bleher wrote:
--- /dev/null
+++ b/hw/tpm.c
@@ -0,0 +1,219 @@
+/*
+ * TPM
Thomas Bleher wrote:
Thiemo Seufer told me that GPLv2 is fine for qemu, therefore I'd like to
ask that this patch be included in qemu as I posted it (the second
version with the clarified GPLv2 license).
I prefer that a BSD style license is used, especially if the code just
contains wrappers.
On 11/5/07, Robert Reif [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm looking at adding more complete support for different sparc32
CPUs, MMUs, cache controllers and systems.
Great! The only problems I see are that OpenBIOS support needs to be
added for the new CPUs and supporting all CPUs with one image may
On 11/5/07, Paul Brook [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sunday 04 November 2007, Robert Reif wrote:
I'm looking at adding more complete support for different sparc32
CPUs, MMUs, cache controllers and systems.
Each CPU/MMU/cache controller combination is slightly different and
requires its
On Sat, 2007-11-03 at 18:52 +0100, Paul Brook wrote:
On Saturday 03 November 2007, TJ wrote:
I'm building on x86_64 GNU/Linux. There are *lots* of (1053) compiler
warnings of the class:
warning: cast to pointer from integer of different size
There are at due to the recent
[sorry if this is the wrong list, but I haven't figured out any public
address where I could send kqemu bug reports and patches]
Currently, both NetBSD and OpenBSD are hanging or crashing when running
on qemu with the kqemu accelerator enabled.
This happens because both systems are using a
On Sat, 2007-11-03 at 20:05 +0100, Fabrice Bellard wrote:
I think that using host addresses in __put_user and __get_user is not
logical. They should use target addresses as get_user and put_user. As
Paul said, It is not worth mixing get/put/copy and lock/unlock functions.
Please see the RFC:
Uhhh, I'm quite uncomfortable now. After sending the emails describing
how everything should be done I realized that I had never reworked my
base patches. All my higher-level patches are sound, but I never
reworked my {get,put}_user() and copy_{to,from}_user() patches to follow
the same pattern.
Thayne Harbaugh wrote:
On Sat, 2007-11-03 at 20:05 +0100, Fabrice Bellard wrote:
I think that using host addresses in __put_user and __get_user is not
logical. They should use target addresses as get_user and put_user. As
Paul said, It is not worth mixing get/put/copy and lock/unlock
On Mon, 2007-11-05 at 22:42 +0100, Fabrice Bellard wrote:
Thayne Harbaugh wrote:
On Sat, 2007-11-03 at 20:05 +0100, Fabrice Bellard wrote:
I think that using host addresses in __put_user and __get_user is not
logical. They should use target addresses as get_user and put_user. As
Paul
Thayne Harbaugh wrote:
On Mon, 2007-11-05 at 22:42 +0100, Fabrice Bellard wrote:
Thayne Harbaugh wrote:
On Sat, 2007-11-03 at 20:05 +0100, Fabrice Bellard wrote:
I think that using host addresses in __put_user and __get_user is not
logical. They should use target addresses as get_user and
On 31.10.2007, at 21:37, Tim Leek wrote:
3. gcc-3.3 won't compile under intel osx. No I didn't try to tweak
it or search extensively online to see if there are work-arounds.
Possibly these exist. I have only copied the last 50-100 lines of
output here.
well, Apple's version of gcc
access_ok() and lock_user() perform essential functions. lock_user(),
however, isn't directly comparable to how the kernel operates and should
therefore be encapsulated inside more typical kernel functions such as
{get,put}_user(), copy_{to,from}_user() and the like. access_ok() and
This patch adds CPU dependent boot mode flag support.
Different CPUs use different bits for the boot mode flag. The constant
MMU_BM is replaced with a variable which is set for the selected CPU.
This patch also removes the MMU flags from being saved in the
translation block code as a result of
20 matches
Mail list logo
