On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 04:24:48PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> So, where did we get to? I *think* the consensus was that the KVM tool
> did not need to be in the kernel tree, right? In which case:
>
> 1) I need to remove the kvmtool tree from linux-next
> 2) the same code needs
Hi all again,
On Sat, 20 Oct 2012 18:04:36 +1100 Stephen Rothwell
wrote:
>
> On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 07:50:52 -0700 Linus Torvalds
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 7:41 PM, Stephen Rothwell
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/penberg/linux.git
> > >>
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 10:20:34AM +0800, Asias He wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 6:16 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 11:24:19AM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> >> On 10/21/2012 05:39 PM, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> >> >
> >> > On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 5:02 PM, richard -rw- weinberger
>
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 6:16 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 11:24:19AM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
>> On 10/21/2012 05:39 PM, Pekka Enberg wrote:
>> >
>> > On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 5:02 PM, richard -rw- weinberger
>> > wrote:
>> >> qemu supports all these features.
>> >> E.g. to ac
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 11:24:19AM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 10/21/2012 05:39 PM, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 5:02 PM, richard -rw- weinberger
> > wrote:
> >> qemu supports all these features.
> >> E.g. to access the host fs use:
> >> qemu ... \
> >> -fsdev
> >> loc
On 10/21/2012 08:10 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> Ok, looks useful - will someone on the Qemu side script this up
> and integrate it into the kernel in a useful form?
There are going to be as many options as there are users - people will
want different things, like block device assignment (for fs/iosc
On 10/21/2012 05:39 PM, Pekka Enberg wrote:
>
> On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 5:02 PM, richard -rw- weinberger
> wrote:
>> qemu supports all these features.
>> E.g. to access the host fs use:
>> qemu ... \
>> -fsdev
>> local,security_model=passthrough,id=fsdev-root,path=/your/root/,readonly
>> \
>>
On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 01:29:35PM +0200, richard -rw- weinberger wrote:
> Every kernel developer has his own wrapper script to make qemu usable.
> IMHO it's time to add such a script to the kernel tree.
One observation I'll make is that for many people, what you want to do
is a *lot* more than ju
* Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
> On 2012.10.21 at 19:54 +0200, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
> > On 2012.10.21 at 19:51 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > >
> > > * Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 2012.10.21 at 19:15 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > > > > On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 05:03:05PM
* Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
> On 2012.10.21 at 19:51 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
> >
> > > On 2012.10.21 at 19:15 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 05:03:05PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > > > The best way to compare them would
On 2012.10.21 at 19:54 +0200, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
> On 2012.10.21 at 19:51 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
> >
> > > On 2012.10.21 at 19:15 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 05:03:05PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > > > The best
On 2012.10.21 at 19:51 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
>
> > On 2012.10.21 at 19:15 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > > On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 05:03:05PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > > The best way to compare them would be a script that gives exactly the
> > > > sa
* Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
> On 2012.10.21 at 19:15 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 05:03:05PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > The best way to compare them would be a script that gives exactly the
> > > same test environment that 'vm run' / 'vm sandbox' does out of bo
On 2012.10.21 at 19:15 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 05:03:05PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > The best way to compare them would be a script that gives exactly the
> > same test environment that 'vm run' / 'vm sandbox' does out of box,
> > but using qemu.
> >
> > If such a
On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 05:03:05PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> The best way to compare them would be a script that gives exactly the
> same test environment that 'vm run' / 'vm sandbox' does out of box,
> but using qemu.
>
> If such a script is available then that would certainly be a useful
> test
On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 2:59 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> You are wrong on three counts:
>>
>> - As I mentioned it in my first mail to you this is not the
>>same as 'vm run': you still have a qemu-root.img while
>>tools/kvm does not ...
>>
>>'vm run' works without having any disk image a
* richard -rw- weinberger wrote:
> qemu supports all these features.
> E.g. to access the host fs use:
> qemu ... \
> -fsdev
> local,security_model=passthrough,id=fsdev-root,path=/your/root/,readonly
> \
> -device virtio-9p-pci,id=fs-root,fsdev=fsdev-root,mount_tag=rootshare
The best way t
On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 2:59 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> You are wrong on three counts:
>
> - As I mentioned it in my first mail to you this is not the
>same as 'vm run': you still have a qemu-root.img while
>tools/kvm does not ...
>
>'vm run' works without having any disk image around,
* Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 01:07:31PM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
> > Why couldn't this script just be a wrapper around qemu
>
> It can be. Here is my ususual one:
>
> #!/bin/sh
>
> /opt/qemu/bin/qemu-system-x86_64 \
> -m 1500 \
> -enable-kvm \
> -dr
On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 1:18 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 01:07:31PM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
>> Why couldn't this script just be a wrapper around qemu?
>>
>> I get the kvm developers developing features that isn't ideal, but for
>> the quick boot a kernel tests, I don't s
On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 01:07:31PM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
> Why couldn't this script just be a wrapper around qemu?
>
> I get the kvm developers developing features that isn't ideal, but for
> the quick boot a kernel tests, I don't see why a well maintained qemu
> wrapper isn't superior. I hate
On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 01:07:31PM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
> Why couldn't this script just be a wrapper around qemu
It can be. Here is my ususual one:
#!/bin/sh
/opt/qemu/bin/qemu-system-x86_64 \
-m 1500 \
-enable-kvm \
-drive if=none,file=/home/hch/qemu-root.img,cache
On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 8:07 PM, Dave Airlie wrote:
>
> Why couldn't this script just be a wrapper around qemu?
>
> I get the kvm developers developing features that isn't ideal, but for
> the quick boot a kernel tests, I don't see why a well maintained qemu
> wrapper isn't superior. I hate constr
On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 4:14 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 06:04:36PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>> So are there any compelling arguments from the proponents, or can
>> I remove this from linux-next (and have it removed from the tip
>> auto-latest branch)?
>
> FWIW, I ga
On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 06:04:36PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> So are there any compelling arguments from the proponents, or can
> I remove this from linux-next (and have it removed from the tip
> auto-latest branch)?
FWIW, I gave this a run and I have to say, it works as advertized: I
built
Hi all,
On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 07:50:52 -0700 Linus Torvalds
wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 7:41 PM, Stephen Rothwell
> wrote:
> >>
> >> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/penberg/linux.git
> >> kvmtool/for-linus
> >
> > So you have not taken this in the v3.7 merge window.
> >
>
On Thu, 18 Oct 2012, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 02:34:33PM +0300, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> > > Hi Linus,
> > >
> > > Please consider pulling the latest LKVM tree from:
> > >
> > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/penberg/linux.git
* Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 02:34:33PM +0300, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> > Hi Linus,
> >
> > Please consider pulling the latest LKVM tree from:
> >
> > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/penberg/linux.git
> > kvmtool/for-linus
> >
> > LKVM is the long lost us
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 7:41 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>>
>> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/penberg/linux.git
>> kvmtool/for-linus
>
> So you have not taken this in the v3.7 merge window.
>
> Will you ever merge this?
I have yet to see a compelling argument for merging it. It'
Hi Linus,
On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 14:34:33 +0300 (EEST) Pekka Enberg
wrote:
>
> Please consider pulling the latest LKVM tree from:
>
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/penberg/linux.git
> kvmtool/for-linus
So you have not taken this in the v3.7 merge window.
Will you ever merge th
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 02:34:33PM +0300, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> Hi Linus,
>
> Please consider pulling the latest LKVM tree from:
>
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/penberg/linux.git
> kvmtool/for-linus
>
> LKVM is the long lost userspace friend of KVM that makes it really easy
31 matches
Mail list logo
