On 31/10/13 15:30, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 10:39:03AM +0800, Hu Tao wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> I know it's been a long time since this thread. But qemu 1.7 is
>> releasing, do you have any consensus on this?
>>
>> Thanks.
>
>
> I think the biggest issue is the new PANICKE
Note: CC list restricted to @redhat.com.
On 10/29/13 17:01, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Ping!
>
> Hu Tao writes:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> I know it's been a long time since this thread. But qemu 1.7 is
>> releasing, do you have any consensus on this?
IIRC Anthony wanted a brand new virtio device and
Ping!
Hu Tao writes:
> Hi All,
>
> I know it's been a long time since this thread. But qemu 1.7 is
> releasing, do you have any consensus on this?
>
> Thanks.
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
On 08/27/2013 11:06 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 03:09:06PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
Paolo Bonzini writes:
Also, a virtio watchdog device makes little sense, IMHO. PV makes sense
if emulation has insufficient performance, excessive CPU usage, or
excessive complex
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 08:26:53AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> That's why I think having a virtio-ilo makes sense. This is not a
> solved problem today.
What's the scope of virtio-ilo? If it's anything like a real ILO it's
going to do a lot of not-very-related things, such as:
- pvpanic-ty
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 8:20 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 04:08:12PM +0300, Ronen Hod wrote:
>> So the right solution is to send a heart-beat to a management
>> application (using qemu-ga or whatever), and let it decide how to
>> handle it.
This is host-centric solution
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 02:13:34PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 09:16:57PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > Il 22/08/2013 19:53, Laszlo Ersek ha scritto:
> > >> > We should just introduce a simple watchdog device based on virtio and
> > >> > call it a day. Then it's cr
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 04:08:12PM +0300, Ronen Hod wrote:
> So the right solution is to send a heart-beat to a management
> application (using qemu-ga or whatever), and let it decide how to
> handle it.
Agreed. The qemu watchdog lets you do this already. You can (using
the qemu monitor, or libv
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 01:25:32PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> I believe that the watchdogs we emulate today are not supported by a
> majority of guests.
BTW this is not true. The two watchdog devices are supported
by all Linux guests.
Windows guests do not support them, but Windows lacks[1]
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 03:09:06PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> Paolo Bonzini writes:
> > Also, a virtio watchdog device makes little sense, IMHO. PV makes sense
> > if emulation has insufficient performance, excessive CPU usage, or
> > excessive complexity. We already have both an ISA and a
On 22 August 2013 21:09, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> Paolo Bonzini writes:
>> Not just that. Panic notifiers are called in a substantially unknown
>> environment, with locks taken or interrupts already set up.
>
> If you make the panic notify a config space write, then on virtio-pci,
> it's an outb
On 22/08/13 20:33, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> Laszlo Ersek writes:
>
>> On 08/22/13 18:10, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>> The thread from yesterday has died off (perhaps also because of
>>> my inappropriate answer to Michael, for which I apologize to him
>>> and everyone). I took some time to discuss th
12 matches
Mail list logo
