I want run gpe-image on qemuarm. and I have got a gpe-image through
openembedded,like this:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/stuff$ bitbake gpe-image
NOTE: Handling BitBake files: - (5018/5018) [100 %]
NOTE: Parsing finished. 4783 cached, 0 parsed, 235 skipped, 0 masked.
NOTE: build 200801181833:
On 1/20/08, William Pearson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm hoping to do some research on a slightly odd form of resource
> allocation in an arch. Not sure which yet, hoping for some advise. My
> only real world assembler practice has been 68K (a while ago), but I
> have coded in my own assembler
Returning to an old topic...
Christian MICHON wrote:
On 8/19/06, J M Cerqueira Esteves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So the "culprit" of the cdrom timeouts seems to be -hdd ...
but why?
I saw the same things few weeks ago. Since then, I do
not use hdd anymore (my qemu host is winXP).
My previo
>
> > If I'm not mistaken, the 0.9.0 release had an issue with corrupting
> > the qcow2 image when it was around 2GB.
> >
>
> Why not using the newest version, 0.9.1?
Tom
On Sunday 20 January 2008, Filip Navara wrote:
> Hello,
>
> attached is a patch that implements the SMBIOS within the Bochs BIOS code.
> Complete list of changes:
This should be submitted to the Bochs list.
Paul
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=1864692&group_id=12580&atid=312580
- Filip
On Jan 20, 2008 3:25 PM, Paul Brook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sunday 20 January 2008, Filip Navara wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > attached is a patch that implements the SMBIOS within the Bochs B
On Jan 20, 2008, at 2:17 PM, Filip Navara wrote:
Hello,
attached is a patch that implements the SMBIOS within the Bochs BIOS
code. Complete list of changes:
- Added generation of SSDT ACPI table that contains definitions for
available processors.
- Added basic implementation of SMBIOS.
On Jan 20, 2008, at 5:37 PM, Filip Navara wrote:
The specific VMware backdoor call isn't implemented, but the
framework is there and it wouldn't be hard to add support for it.
The BIOS can fallback to some "reasonable" value if the backdoor
isn't available.
+memset(bios_uuid, 0
The specific VMware backdoor call isn't implemented, but the framework is
there and it wouldn't be hard to add support for it. The BIOS can fallback
to some "reasonable" value if the backdoor isn't available.
Best regards,
Filip Navara
On Jan 20, 2008 5:20 PM, Alexander Graf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> w
On Jan 20, 2008 5:53 PM, Alexander Graf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Jan 20, 2008, at 5:37 PM, Filip Navara wrote:
>
> The specific VMware backdoor call isn't implemented, but the framework is
> there and it wouldn't be hard to add support for it. The BIOS can fallback
> to some "reasonable"
Hello
I'm using qemu a lot for testing.
I have to test some scenarios involving intel-VT machines.
Can qemu emulates the intel-VT (or AMD pacifica) behavior on any type of
machine?
Is it possible? Is it planned?
Thank you
Eurolines : Voyagez au meilleur prix : http://www.alinto.com/pub/
Hi,
On Jan 20, 2008, at 7:29 PM, octane indice wrote:
Hello
I'm using qemu a lot for testing.
I have to test some scenarios involving intel-VT machines.
Can qemu emulates the intel-VT (or AMD pacifica) behavior on any
type of
machine?
SVM (AMD pacifica) is party integrated. You don't ha
> could you please consider supporting gcc 4 ?
you can install gcc-3 in other directory and use the --cc= option.
On Slackware I just
installpkg -root /tmp/gcc3-just-for-qemu gcc-3*tgz
./configure --cc=/tmp/gcc3-just-for-qemu/usr/bin/gcc
make
...
works fine.
Hi, qemu 0.9.1 is released, but the changelog is complete ?
On irc I read : use -disc ... so I launch my new qemu and I see lot of
news options !
Is there other corrections done, not writting on che ChangeLog on the
site, like better usage of qcow2 ?
thx
--
aster
Hello,
the current version of QEMU emulates the VMware backdoor I/O port and it
works quite well. Unfortunately it doesn't emulate the VMware behavior of
ignoring the I/O permissions when accessing this special port. The attached
patch corrects it. It's important to ignore the permissions, so that
Alexey, you're wrong again.
svm is supported.
On Sun, 2008-01-20 at 20:59 +0200, Alexey Eremenko wrote:
> Note however, that as far as I know, all the Qemu accelerators - KQemu
> and KVM do not support this.
>
Note however, that as far as I know, all the Qemu accelerators - KQemu
and KVM do not support this.
--
-Alexey Eremenko "Technologov"
On 20/01/2008, Alexander Graf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> He was talking about running SVM code in KQemu/KVM. It might work with
> kqemu (I honestly have not tested it, but see no reason it shouldn't),
> but definitely not with KVM. Simply said, you can not run KVM inside
> of a KVM virtualized ma
I think you dont answer his question. ;)
Kind regards,
Sylvain Petreolle (aka Usurp)
- Message d'origine
De : Jérôme PRIOR <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
À : qemu-devel@nongnu.org
Envoyé le : Dimanche, 20 Janvier 2008, 19h40mn 29s
Objet : Re: [Qemu-devel] WE NEED GCC 4 please
> could yo
He was talking about running SVM code in KQemu/KVM. It might work with
kqemu (I honestly have not tested it, but see no reason it shouldn't),
but definitely not with KVM. Simply said, you can not run KVM inside
of a KVM virtualized machine.
Regards,
Alex
On Jan 20, 2008, at 8:21 PM, Dor L
Opps, me wrong this time, it should have been private.
Didn't notice the reply address is different. Sorry.
On Sun, 2008-01-20 at 21:21 +0200, Dor Laor wrote:
> Alexey, you're wrong again.
>
>
> svm is supported.
>
> On Sun, 2008-01-20 at 20:59 +0200, Alexey Eremenko wrote:
> > Note however, th
andrzej zaborowski wrote:
On 20/01/2008, Alexander Graf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
He was talking about running SVM code in KQemu/KVM. It might work with
kqemu (I honestly have not tested it, but see no reason it shouldn't),
but definitely not with KVM. Simply said, you can not run KVM inside
On Sunday 20 January 2008, Sylvain Petreolle wrote:
> I think you dont answer his question. ;)
his question is bogus. if he spent 5 seconds reading the archives, it isnt
like people arent "considering supporting gcc 4". having people type all
caps e-mails contributes nothing. either put up a
Hi,
I've tried QEMU 0.9.1 and PS/2 mouse support for FC4 guest seems to be broken.
I was using previously a CVS version dating back to 2007/09/07 and it works
fine with it.
It can be tested by simply running qemu on the FC4-i386-DVD.iso installation
ISO DVD. Anaconda doesn't manage to find the
Hi,
On Sun, 20 Jan 2008, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> having people type all caps e-mails contributes nothing.
I disagree: it makes it easier to spot whom to ignore. Unless you know
that person, of course, and respect her, too.
Ciao,
Dscho
Filip Navara wrote:
Hello,
the current version of QEMU emulates the VMware backdoor I/O port and
it works quite well. Unfortunately it doesn't emulate the VMware
behavior of ignoring the I/O permissions when accessing this special
port. The attached patch corrects it. It's important to ignore
On Sunday 20 January 2008, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Jan 2008, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > having people type all caps e-mails contributes nothing.
>
> I disagree: it makes it easier to spot whom to ignore. Unless you know
> that person, of course, and respect her, too.
yes, the caps
After quite a lot of CVS bisection, I've identified revision 1.24 of
hw/pckbd.c ("QEMU keyboard issue with Gujin-2.2") to be responsible for the
regression with the PS/2 mouse for FC4 guests.
With r1.24, I can read in the log of the kernel boot sequence :
"PNP: PS/2 Controller [PNP0303:KBD,PNP0f
On Sunday 20 January 2008, Sunil Amitkumar Janki wrote:
> Ignoring the fact that the original poster wrote in all caps and can't
> contribute much to qemu development, what is being done or who can
> give directions on what would have to be done to make qemu build using
> gcc4. I'd prefer it too th
On Jan 20, 2008 11:26 PM, Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Sunday 20 January 2008, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> > On Sun, 20 Jan 2008, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > having people type all caps e-mails contributes nothing.
> >
> > I disagree: it makes it easier to spot whom to ignore.
> > I think it would be great to maintain compatibility with the binary-only
> > versions of the vm tools though.
>
> But you're changing the semantics of the x86 instruction set. You
> potentially break a real operating system. It also eliminates the
> possibility of nesting with something like
Alexander Graf wrote:
I think it would be great to maintain compatibility with the binary-only
versions of the vm tools though.
But you're changing the semantics of the x86 instruction set. You
potentially break a real operating system. It also eliminates the
possibility of nesting with
On 20 Jan 2008, at 22:56, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Sunday 20 January 2008, Sunil Amitkumar Janki wrote:
...what is being done or who can
give directions on what would have to be done to make qemu build
using
gcc4.
as i said, review the archives and you'll find many discussions
with real
in
Am 20.01.2008 um 23:38 schrieb Sunil Amitkumar Janki:
Ignoring the fact that the original poster wrote in all caps and can't
contribute much to qemu development, what is being done or who can
give directions on what would have to be done to make qemu build using
gcc4. I'd prefer it too that I w
Hi,
On Sun, 20 Jan 2008, Even Rouault wrote:
> After quite a lot of CVS bisection, [...]
Not wanting to advertise git, but to help other people needing to bisect
efficiently: here is a recipe how to do this with git.
1. get git (obviously)
2. $ git clone git://repo.or.cz/qemu.git/
(it is a
Hi,
On Sun, 20 Jan 2008, Andreas Färber wrote:
> Am 20.01.2008 um 23:38 schrieb Sunil Amitkumar Janki:
>
> > Ignoring the fact that the original poster wrote in all caps and can't
> > contribute much to qemu development, what is being done or who can
> > give directions on what would have to b
En réponse à Alexander Graf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> :
> He was talking about running SVM code in KQemu/KVM. It might
> work with
> kqemu (I honestly have not tested it, but see no reason it
> shouldn't),
> but definitely not with KVM. Simply said, you can not run KVM
> inside
> of a KVM virtualiz
I think it would be great to maintain compatibility with the binary-only
versions of the vm tools though.
Regards,
Alex
- Ursprüngliche Nachricht -
Von: Anthony Liguori <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Gesendet: Sonntag, 20. Januar 2008 22:40
An: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
Betreff: Re: [Qemu-devel] VMpor
> So, as qemu emulates CPU, does it emulates [pacifica|VT]
> extensions too?
> With a patch?
Yes, Qemu 0.91, can emulate AMD Pacifica/SVM, according to:
http://fabrice.bellard.free.fr/qemu/changelog.html
So yes, theoretically KVM should work inside Qemu, but don't expect
real-hardware performance
Mark Williamson wrote:
I think it would be great to maintain compatibility with the binary-only
versions of the vm tools though.
But you're changing the semantics of the x86 instruction set. You
potentially break a real operating system. It also eliminates the
possibility of nesting wit
Hi...
If I may jump into the pool...
> I plan to work around the MinGW issue by guarding the offending part by
> "#ifdef GCC...", even if I have been told that it works only by chance
> (but it works, whereas any other option I tried does not).
Ehm, should we better wait a bit for fabrice to com
On Jan 21, 2008, at 4:39 AM, Mulyadi Santosa wrote:
Hi...
If I may jump into the pool...
I plan to work around the MinGW issue by guarding the offending
part by
"#ifdef GCC...", even if I have been told that it works only by
chance
(but it works, whereas any other option I tried does not
On Jan 21, 2008, at 3:41 AM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
Mark Williamson wrote:
I think it would be great to maintain compatibility with the
binary-only
versions of the vm tools though.
But you're changing the semantics of the x86 instruction set. You
potentially break a real operating system.
On Jan 20, 2008, at 8:52 PM, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
On 20/01/2008, Alexander Graf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
He was talking about running SVM code in KQemu/KVM. It might work
with
kqemu (I honestly have not tested it, but see no reason it
shouldn't),
but definitely not with KVM. Simply
Alexander Graf wrote:
> Hi,
>
> this is a mostly a resend of the very same patch I sent to the list a
> few days ago. I believe I fixed most issues (wrong endif, gcc3
> breakage). Please tell me if this patch breaks already working setups,
> as it should only make _more_ things work than before.
>
Hi,
this is a mostly a resend of the very same patch I sent to the list a
few days ago. I believe I fixed most issues (wrong endif, gcc3
breakage). Please tell me if this patch breaks already working setups,
as it should only make _more_ things work than before.
If anybody has a really valid poin
46 matches
Mail list logo
