On 01/28/15 17:47, Don Slutz wrote:
> On 01/28/15 03:19, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 27.01.15 at 08:58, wrote:
>> On 26.01.15 at 21:19, wrote:
On 01/26/15 11:46, Jan Beulich wrote:
> The delay is not in coding up this, but is that QEMU master (and now
> xenbits's qemu staging) do not
On 01/28/15 03:19, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 27.01.15 at 08:58, wrote:
> On 26.01.15 at 21:19, wrote:
>>> On 01/26/15 11:46, Jan Beulich wrote:
As stated before - if feasible, 8 would seem the best option. The
second best one would be to support all four I/O insns (assuming
VM
>>> On 27.01.15 at 08:58, wrote:
On 26.01.15 at 21:19, wrote:
>> On 01/26/15 11:46, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> As stated before - if feasible, 8 would seem the best option. The
>>> second best one would be to support all four I/O insns (assuming
>>> VMware supports all of them too) with any lega
>>> On 26.01.15 at 21:19, wrote:
> On 01/26/15 11:46, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> As stated before - if feasible, 8 would seem the best option. The
>> second best one would be to support all four I/O insns (assuming
>> VMware supports all of them too) with any legal (even if pointless
>> or redundant) p
On 01/26/15 11:46, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 26.01.15 at 16:58, wrote:
>> On 01/22/15 03:32, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 21.01.15 at 18:52, wrote:
On 01/16/15 05:09, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 03.10.14 at 00:40, wrote:
...
>
> As stated before - if feasible, 8 would seem the best o
>>> On 26.01.15 at 16:58, wrote:
> On 01/22/15 03:32, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 21.01.15 at 18:52, wrote:
>>> On 01/16/15 05:09, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 03.10.14 at 00:40, wrote:
> +
> +/* Only adjust byte_cnt 1 time */
> +if ( bytes[0] == 0x66 ) /* operan
On 01/22/15 03:32, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 21.01.15 at 18:52, wrote:
>> On 01/16/15 05:09, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 03.10.14 at 00:40, wrote:
This is a new domain_create() flag, DOMCRF_vmware_port. It is
passed to domctl as XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_vmware_port.
>>> Can you explain why a H
>>> On 21.01.15 at 18:52, wrote:
> On 01/16/15 05:09, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 03.10.14 at 00:40, wrote:
>>> This is a new domain_create() flag, DOMCRF_vmware_port. It is
>>> passed to domctl as XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_vmware_port.
>>
>> Can you explain why a HVM param isn't suitable here?
>>
>
> T
On 01/16/15 05:09, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 03.10.14 at 00:40, wrote:
>> This is a new domain_create() flag, DOMCRF_vmware_port. It is
>> passed to domctl as XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_vmware_port.
>
> Can you explain why a HVM param isn't suitable here?
>
The issue is that you need this flag during con
>>> On 03.10.14 at 00:40, wrote:
> This is a new domain_create() flag, DOMCRF_vmware_port. It is
> passed to domctl as XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_vmware_port.
Can you explain why a HVM param isn't suitable here?
> This is both a more complete support then in currently provided by
> QEMU and/or KVM and less
10 matches
Mail list logo
