On 15.08.2013, at 18:22, Andreas Färber wrote:
> Am 15.08.2013 17:58, schrieb Alexander Graf:
>>
>> On 15.08.2013, at 17:48, Andreas Färber wrote:
>>
>>> Am 15.08.2013 17:30, schrieb Alexander Graf:
On 15.08.2013, at 17:11, Andreas Färber wrote:
> Am 15.08.2013 15:12, schri
Am 15.08.2013 17:58, schrieb Alexander Graf:
>
> On 15.08.2013, at 17:48, Andreas Färber wrote:
>
>> Am 15.08.2013 17:30, schrieb Alexander Graf:
>>>
>>> On 15.08.2013, at 17:11, Andreas Färber wrote:
>>>
Am 15.08.2013 15:12, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
> Everyone is talking past each other
On 15.08.2013, at 17:48, Andreas Färber wrote:
> Am 15.08.2013 17:30, schrieb Alexander Graf:
>>
>> On 15.08.2013, at 17:11, Andreas Färber wrote:
>>
>>> Am 15.08.2013 15:12, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
Everyone is talking past each other and no one is addressing the real
problem. There
Andreas Färber writes:
> Am 15.08.2013 15:12, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
>> Everyone is talking past each other and no one is addressing the real
>> problem. There are two distinct issues here:
>>
>> 1) We have two ABIs that cannot be changed unless there's a very good
>>reason to. Alexey's
Am 15.08.2013 17:30, schrieb Alexander Graf:
>
> On 15.08.2013, at 17:11, Andreas Färber wrote:
>
>> Am 15.08.2013 15:12, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
>>> Everyone is talking past each other and no one is addressing the real
>>> problem. There are two distinct issues here:
>>>
>>> 1) We have two ABI
On 15.08.2013, at 17:11, Andreas Färber wrote:
> Am 15.08.2013 15:12, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
>> Everyone is talking past each other and no one is addressing the real
>> problem. There are two distinct issues here:
>>
>> 1) We have two ABIs that cannot be changed unless there's a very good
>>
Am 15.08.2013 15:12, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
> Everyone is talking past each other and no one is addressing the real
> problem. There are two distinct issues here:
>
> 1) We have two ABIs that cannot be changed unless there's a very good
>reason to. Alexey's original patch breaks both. The
On 15.08.2013, at 15:12, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> Benjamin Herrenschmidt writes:
>
>> On Thu, 2013-08-15 at 08:03 +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>
> How does the user select that he wants a v2.3 p7 cpu with this
>>> patch?
Why would he want that? The behaviour would not change be
Benjamin Herrenschmidt writes:
> On Thu, 2013-08-15 at 08:03 +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
>> >> How does the user select that he wants a v2.3 p7 cpu with this
>> patch?
>> >
>> > Why would he want that? The behaviour would not change because of
>> the
>> > version - all definitions use the sam
On 15.08.2013, at 08:30, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-08-15 at 08:03 +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
How does the user select that he wants a v2.3 p7 cpu with this
>> patch?
>>>
>>> Why would he want that? The behaviour would not change because of
>> the
>>> version - all de
On 15.08.2013, at 08:28, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-08-15 at 08:10 +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
>> So you're saying it's good to remove a well established feature on 5%
>> of the supported CPUs, leave the others inconsistent with the change
>> and then declare the whole thi
On Thu, 2013-08-15 at 08:03 +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
> >> How does the user select that he wants a v2.3 p7 cpu with this
> patch?
> >
> > Why would he want that? The behaviour would not change because of
> the
> > version - all definitions use the same POWERPC_FAMILY(POWER7) and
> PVR is
> >
On Thu, 2013-08-15 at 08:10 +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
> So you're saying it's good to remove a well established feature on 5%
> of the supported CPUs, leave the others inconsistent with the change
> and then declare the whole thing an improvement?
WTF are you talking about ?
To need an exac
On 15.08.2013, at 07:54, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-08-15 at 07:21 +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>
>> Am 15.08.2013 um 05:35 schrieb Alexey Kardashevskiy :
>>
>>> IBM POWERPC processors encode PVR as a CPU family in higher 16 bits and
>>> a CPU version in lower 16 bits. Since
On 15.08.2013, at 07:44, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
> On 08/15/2013 03:21 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>
>>
>> Am 15.08.2013 um 05:35 schrieb Alexey Kardashevskiy :
>>
>>> IBM POWERPC processors encode PVR as a CPU family in higher 16 bits and
>>> a CPU version in lower 16 bits. Since there is
On Thu, 2013-08-15 at 07:21 +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
> Am 15.08.2013 um 05:35 schrieb Alexey Kardashevskiy :
>
> > IBM POWERPC processors encode PVR as a CPU family in higher 16 bits and
> > a CPU version in lower 16 bits. Since there is no significant change
> > in behavior between version
On 08/15/2013 03:21 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
>
> Am 15.08.2013 um 05:35 schrieb Alexey Kardashevskiy :
>
>> IBM POWERPC processors encode PVR as a CPU family in higher 16 bits and
>> a CPU version in lower 16 bits. Since there is no significant change
>> in behavior between versions, there is
Am 15.08.2013 um 05:35 schrieb Alexey Kardashevskiy :
> IBM POWERPC processors encode PVR as a CPU family in higher 16 bits and
> a CPU version in lower 16 bits. Since there is no significant change
> in behavior between versions, there is no point to add every single CPU
> version in QEMU's CPU
IBM POWERPC processors encode PVR as a CPU family in higher 16 bits and
a CPU version in lower 16 bits. Since there is no significant change
in behavior between versions, there is no point to add every single CPU
version in QEMU's CPU list. Also, new CPU versions of already supported
CPU won't brea
19 matches
Mail list logo
