On 2012-04-10 16:06, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > Quoting Jan Kiszka (jan.kis...@siemens.com): >> On 2012-04-09 17:36, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> at https://bugs.launchpad.net/debian/+source/qemu-kvm/+bug/975240 there is >>> reported a problem in 1.0.0 with running unaccelerated qemu with hpet. >>> This is fixed upstream as of commit >>> ce967e2f33861b0e17753f97fa4527b5943c94b6. >>> However, that one seems very depending on many of the preceding ~thousand >>> commits. >>> >>> On irc mjt and iggy suggested that implicitly setting -no-hpet when tcg >>> is chosen should be fine. Right now that seems the best course, but >>> does anyone know how one would cleanly cherrypick that commit into 1.0? >>> Does anyone see a reason why -no-hpet with -no-kvm would cause anyone >>> trouble? >> >> Have you already tried to backport the complete set or dependent >> patches, ie. 5904ae4eba..ce967e2f33? > > Yes, I did, starting with that range. But I kept finding more patches that > seemed to need to preceed it ( cf88a3bcc442d70e10d3969e1edfc8430d74172f, > (40c9dcbfd026f0d0dd73dcf5a189ead7d1ba2d0f, > 48a18b3c698295e4d891f34e919615e84e20f027, > ad6d45fa0837acf3e8cab323ee5b08e05a9410a5). Perhaps the original set should > have been easy to port to 1.0, and I just didn't know what I was doing, > but there seemed to constantly be more previous changes needed.
Well, indeed, that's non-trivial and bears some risk of subtle regressions. It should be easier for upstream, but you are trapped in the remainders of the qemu-kvm fork. Will be gone in 1.1. I have no definitive opinion on disabling hpet in TCG mode. Maybe there are also use cases that weren't affected by the hand-over bug and would suffer from the unavailability of the hpet (as there is no "-hpet"). But, otherwise, this looks like the most pragmatic approach. Jan -- Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT T DE IT 1 Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux
