On 21.05.2011, at 19:00, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
> On 21.05.2011, at 18:41, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
>>
>> On 19.05.2011, at 07:22, Paul Mackerras wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 02:42:08PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 05/17/2011 02:38 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>
>> What wo
On 21.05.2011, at 18:41, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
> On 19.05.2011, at 07:22, Paul Mackerras wrote:
>
>> On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 02:42:08PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
>>> On 05/17/2011 02:38 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
> What would be the path for these patches to get upstream? Would this
On 19.05.2011, at 07:22, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 02:42:08PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
>> On 05/17/2011 02:38 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
What would be the path for these patches to get upstream? Would this
stuff normally go through Avi's tree? There is a bit
On 19.05.2011, at 07:22, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 02:42:08PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
>> On 05/17/2011 02:38 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
What would be the path for these patches to get upstream? Would this
stuff normally go through Avi's tree? There is a bit
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 02:42:08PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 05/17/2011 02:38 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
> >>
> >> What would be the path for these patches to get upstream? Would this
> >> stuff normally go through Avi's tree? There is a bit of a
> >> complication in that they are based on
On 05/17/2011 02:38 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
> What would be the path for these patches to get upstream? Would this
> stuff normally go through Avi's tree? There is a bit of a
> complication in that they are based on Ben's next branch. Would Avi
> pull Ben's next branch, or would they g
Am 17.05.2011 um 13:15 schrieb Paul Mackerras :
> On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 11:46:34AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
>> Very nice patches indeed :). Is there any way I can test them? I
>> don't like pulling code that I couldn't run anywhere yet.
>
> I can understand that, but unfortunately ther
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 11:46:34AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
> Very nice patches indeed :). Is there any way I can test them? I
> don't like pulling code that I couldn't run anywhere yet.
I can understand that, but unfortunately there are no machines
available outside of IBM at this stage that
On 11.05.2011, at 12:34, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> The following series of patches enable KVM to exploit the hardware
> hypervisor mode on 64-bit Power ISA Book3S machines. At present only
> POWER7 is supported, but it would be easy to add other processors.
>
> Running the KVM host in hypervisor
The following series of patches enable KVM to exploit the hardware
hypervisor mode on 64-bit Power ISA Book3S machines. At present only
POWER7 is supported, but it would be easy to add other processors.
Running the KVM host in hypervisor mode means that the guest can use
both supervisor mode and
10 matches
Mail list logo