On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 10:28:35PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> Okay so this is really same as fedora now, isn't it?
> Final irq_level is flipping at (almost) each call.
I haven't logged with Fedora (which works fine either way). I can try
to printk that (or run it with ioapic_debug) if you
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 03:21:55PM -0500, Gabriel L. Somlo wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 09:48:42PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > Also, can you send the patch that you applied please?
I'd say try uncommenting ioapic_debug at the top of
virt/kvm/ioapic.c
Let's see why is polarity getting
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 03:21:55PM -0500, Gabriel L. Somlo wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 09:48:42PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > Also, can you send the patch that you applied please?
>
> The kvm patch allowing OS X to boot is a one-liner:
>
> diff --git a/virt/kvm/ioapic.c b/virt/kvm/i
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 09:48:42PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> Also, can you send the patch that you applied please?
The kvm patch allowing OS X to boot is a one-liner:
diff --git a/virt/kvm/ioapic.c b/virt/kvm/ioapic.c
index ce9ed99..1539d37 100644
--- a/virt/kvm/ioapic.c
+++ b/virt/kvm/i
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 09:18:12AM -0500, Gabriel L. Somlo wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 12:18:17AM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > OS X will boot fine with the one-liner KVM patch removing the
> > > statement:
> > >
> > > "irq_level ^= entry.fields.polarity;"
> > >
> > > regardless
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 12:13:59AM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
> Can you check whether it configures the ioapic differently?
I poked around hw/i386/kvm/ioapic.c, looking for a few good spots
to add printf statements. These should be spots where calls from
the guest are handled, not where QEMU its
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 12:18:17AM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > OS X will boot fine with the one-liner KVM patch removing the
> > statement:
> >
> > "irq_level ^= entry.fields.polarity;"
> >
> > regardless of how LNK*._PRS is configured, and will hang without the
> > patch, also regar
> Am 29.01.2014 um 22:36 schrieb "Gabriel L. Somlo" :
>
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 03:17:43PM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>> Do you belive there's a chance we can work around this by just tweaking
>>> ACPI on the QEMU side, and thus eliminate the need for a KVM patch ?
>>
>> Yes, that's what I
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 04:36:50PM -0500, Gabriel L. Somlo wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 03:17:43PM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
> > >Do you belive there's a chance we can work around this by just tweaking
> > >ACPI on the QEMU side, and thus eliminate the need for a KVM patch ?
> >
> > Yes, th
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 03:17:43PM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
> >Do you belive there's a chance we can work around this by just tweaking
> >ACPI on the QEMU side, and thus eliminate the need for a KVM patch ?
>
> Yes, that's what I was hoping. What does the IRQ link property look
> like on a rea
10 matches
Mail list logo
