On 2018-08-20 10:45, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 20 August 2018 at 07:21, Thomas Huth wrote:
>> On 2018-08-18 12:10, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>> On 18 August 2018 at 10:07, Thomas Huth wrote:
6 minutes is really a lot already. I guess most users will hit CTRL-C
before waiting so long if ther
On 20 August 2018 at 07:21, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 2018-08-18 12:10, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> On 18 August 2018 at 10:07, Thomas Huth wrote:
>>> 6 minutes is really a lot already. I guess most users will hit CTRL-C
>>> before waiting so long if there is a realy problem here ... If the
>>> current
On 2018-08-18 12:10, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 18 August 2018 at 10:07, Thomas Huth wrote:
>> 6 minutes is really a lot already. I guess most users will hit CTRL-C
>> before waiting so long if there is a realy problem here ... If the
>> current tests just takes a little bit more than 1 minute on t
On 18 August 2018 at 10:07, Thomas Huth wrote:
> 6 minutes is really a lot already. I guess most users will hit CTRL-C
> before waiting so long if there is a realy problem here ... If the
> current tests just takes a little bit more than 1 minute on the Sparc
> machine, maybe 2 or 3 minutes would
On 2018-08-17 18:14, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On a SPARC host that I'm using as a build test machine, the
> boot-serial-test for the SPARC guest machines takes about 65
> seconds to execute. This means that it hits the current
> 60 second timer on these tests. Push the timeout up so
> that it doesn't
On 17/08/18 17:14, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On a SPARC host that I'm using as a build test machine, the
> boot-serial-test for the SPARC guest machines takes about 65
> seconds to execute. This means that it hits the current
> 60 second timer on these tests. Push the timeout up so
> that it doesn't
