On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 8:08 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
> On 24.01.2013, at 10:25, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 11:40:24AM +0530, Anup Patel wrote:
> >> IMHO, If we have something like Virtio-desktop specification then all
> >> possible guest OSes can have support for it
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 6:10 AM, Anup Patel wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> How about having a generic Virtio-based machine for emulating a virtual
> desktop ?
I have also thought about this, current virtio design is not very
clean. On the downside, pure no-legacy approach might not work well if
you want th
Anup Patel writes:
> Hi All,
>
> How about having a generic Virtio-based machine for emulating a virtual
> desktop ?
>
> I know folks have already thought about this and probably also tried
> something or other on this front but, it will be good to know the downsides.
>
> Virtio-desktop can be a
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Anup Patel wrote:
> On 24 January 2013 14:55, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 11:40:24AM +0530, Anup Patel wrote:
>> > IMHO, If we have something like Virtio-desktop specification then all
>> > possible guest OSes can have support for it and d
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 11:40:24AM +0530, Anup Patel wrote:
> IMHO, If we have something like Virtio-desktop specification then all
> possible guest OSes can have support for it and different hypervisor can
> emulate it without worrying about guest support.
At this point x86 virtualization is matu
On 27.01.2013, at 15:07, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> Anup Patel writes:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> How about having a generic Virtio-based machine for emulating a virtual
>> desktop ?
>>
>> I know folks have already thought about this and probably also tried
>> something or other on this front but, it w
On 25.01.2013, at 20:04, Blue Swirl wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 6:10 AM, Anup Patel wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> How about having a generic Virtio-based machine for emulating a virtual
>> desktop ?
>
> I have also thought about this, current virtio design is not very
> clean. On the downside,
On 24/01/13 14:52, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
> On 24.01.2013, at 15:42, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> ...do we have an ARM PCI controller of any working kind in
>> the kernel? versatilepb's PCI controller doesn't count as
>> it is utterly broken :-)
>
> Don't the Marvell chips have PCI? And Tegra? I'm su
On 24.01.2013, at 15:42, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 24 January 2013 14:38, Alexander Graf wrote:
>> But check out the QEMU e500 machine. We have a fully device tree
>> based machine type in the kernel. QEMU drives it by generating a
>> device tree for devices it actually exposes on the fly.
>
>
On 24 January 2013 14:38, Alexander Graf wrote:
> But check out the QEMU e500 machine. We have a fully device tree
> based machine type in the kernel. QEMU drives it by generating a
> device tree for devices it actually exposes on the fly.
The ARM equivalent for that would be mach-virt, I think
(
On 24.01.2013, at 10:25, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 11:40:24AM +0530, Anup Patel wrote:
>> IMHO, If we have something like Virtio-desktop specification then all
>> possible guest OSes can have support for it and different hypervisor can
>> emulate it without worrying about g
On 24 January 2013 14:55, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 11:40:24AM +0530, Anup Patel wrote:
> > IMHO, If we have something like Virtio-desktop specification then all
> > possible guest OSes can have support for it and different hypervisor can
> > emulate it without worrying abo
12 matches
Mail list logo
