On 06.05.16 13:03, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 2:10 AM, Tom Rini wrote:
>> On Thu, May 05, 2016 at 10:21:25PM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>> So what's the goal here? Are we trying to force GPT on systems whose
>>> vendors never intended them to
On 05.05.16 17:21, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 12:45 PM, Marcin Juszkiewicz
> wrote:
>> Recently my angry post on Google+ [1] got so many comments that it was clear
>> that it would be better to move to some mailing list with discussion.
>>
>> As it is about boot loaders and Lin
> Am 28.02.2014 um 22:21 schrieb Peter Maydell :
>
>> On 28 February 2014 14:12, Alex Bennée wrote:
>> Is this "simply" a case of having a precise state in/around syscalls?
>
> No.
>
>> AIUI we already have such a mechanism for dealing with faults in
>> translated code so this is all aimed at
On 27.01.2013, at 15:07, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> Anup Patel writes:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> How about having a generic Virtio-based machine for emulating a virtual
>> desktop ?
>>
>> I know folks have already thought about this and probably also tried
>> something or other on this front but, it w
On 25.01.2013, at 20:04, Blue Swirl wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 6:10 AM, Anup Patel wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> How about having a generic Virtio-based machine for emulating a virtual
>> desktop ?
>
> I have also thought about this, current virtio design is not very
> clean. On the downside,
On 24.01.2013, at 15:42, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 24 January 2013 14:38, Alexander Graf wrote:
>> But check out the QEMU e500 machine. We have a fully device tree
>> based machine type in the kernel. QEMU drives it by generating a
>> device tree for devices it actual
On 24.01.2013, at 10:25, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 11:40:24AM +0530, Anup Patel wrote:
>> IMHO, If we have something like Virtio-desktop specification then all
>> possible guest OSes can have support for it and different hypervisor can
>> emulate it without worrying about g
On 09.02.2012, at 01:50, Fathi Boudra wrote:
> On 8 February 2012 17:56, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>
>> On 08.02.2012, at 16:54, Fathi Boudra wrote:
>>
>>> On 7 February 2012 00:50, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>>> On 4 February 2012 02:39, Peter Maydell
On 09.02.2012, at 02:20, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 9 February 2012 00:50, Fathi Boudra wrote:
>> Same result.
>>
>> Debug info from gdb:
>>
>> qemu: Unsupported syscall: 26
>> ptrace: Function not implemented.
>> No threads.
>
> This bit of the log is uninteresting, because it is mono attempt
Being able to cross assemble the LEB on
>>>> intel would be a significant milestone!
>>>
>>> Ah, mono is a known difficult one for QEMU emulation:
>>> https://bugs.launchpad.net/qemu-linaro/+bug/806873
>>> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/q
On 03.02.2012, at 00:22, Jo Shields wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-02-03 at 00:15 +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
>> On 03.02.2012, at 00:11, Hector Oron wrote:
>>
>>> Hello Jo,
>>>
>>> I am forwarding the message to a couple mailing lists which might have
>>
On 03.02.2012, at 00:11, Hector Oron wrote:
> Hello Jo,
>
> I am forwarding the message to a couple mailing lists which might have
> people interested on the Mono porting for ARM hard-float ABI.
>
> 2012/2/2 Jo Shields :
>> Right now, Mono is available in Debian armhf. This is a hack - what
>>
12 matches
Mail list logo
