Any comments from bhyve folks on that?
Best regards
Corvin
Beckhoff Automation GmbH & Co. KG | Managing Director: Dipl. Phys. Hans Beckhoff
Registered office: Verl, Germany | Register court: Guetersloh HRA 7075
-Original Message-
From: Corvin Köhne
Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2022 12:14
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=209443
parsianweb changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||parsianweb...@gmail.com
--- Comment #
[re-posting from my personal email account, since my mail to
freebsd-virtualization got rejected]
I seem to remember seeing previous feedback that Bhyve developers
strongly preferred the BhyveFwCtl mechanism. I've been out of the loop
though (busy with $dayjob) so I don't know if things have c
[re-posting from my personal email account, since my mail to > freebsd-virtualization got rejected]> > I seem to remember seeing
previous feedback that Bhyve developers > strongly preferred the
BhyveFwCtl mechanism. I've been out of the loop > though (busy with
$dayjob) so I don't know if thing
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=263062
Mark Linimon changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|b...@freebsd.org|virtualization@FreeBSD.org
--
You
Hi Peter and Rebecca,
thanks for your feedback. This patch is backward compatible. It checks
if QemuFwCfg is available and if QemuFwCfg is missing it falls
back to BhyveFwCtl.
So, should I add Reviewed-by (or Acked-by?) Peter and Rebecca to the
commit message?
Thanks
Corvin
Beckhoff Automation
