On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 06:43:15PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> It is a source of pain, and the previous patch anyway changed the
> behavior of "-M pc-1.5" compared to the real 1.5.
>
> This also makes it clear that "-device pvpanic" is not enough:
> it will not expose pvpanic in fw_cfg properly.
Am 21.08.2013 19:02, schrieb Paolo Bonzini:
> Il 21/08/2013 19:03, Michael S. Tsirkin ha scritto:
It is a source of pain, and the previous patch anyway changed the
behavior of "-M pc-1.5" compared to the real 1.5.
This also makes it clear that "-device pvpanic" is not enough:
>>
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 08:03:58PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 06:43:15PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > It is a source of pain, and the previous patch anyway changed the
> > behavior of "-M pc-1.5" compared to the real 1.5.
> >
> > This also makes it clear that "-d
Il 21/08/2013 19:03, Michael S. Tsirkin ha scritto:
>> > It is a source of pain, and the previous patch anyway changed the
>> > behavior of "-M pc-1.5" compared to the real 1.5.
>> >
>> > This also makes it clear that "-device pvpanic" is not enough:
>> > it will not expose pvpanic in fw_cfg prope
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 06:43:15PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> It is a source of pain, and the previous patch anyway changed the
> behavior of "-M pc-1.5" compared to the real 1.5.
>
> This also makes it clear that "-device pvpanic" is not enough:
> it will not expose pvpanic in fw_cfg properly.
It is a source of pain, and the previous patch anyway changed the
behavior of "-M pc-1.5" compared to the real 1.5.
This also makes it clear that "-device pvpanic" is not enough:
it will not expose pvpanic in fw_cfg properly.
No idea how to fix that.
Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini
---
hw/i386/pc
