On 2018-02-19 19:15, Claudio Imbrenda wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Feb 2018 10:07:38 +0100
> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>> Seems like no one is doing guest debugging with kvm on x86 except
>>> me, and I'm only doing it too infrequently now: This one broke that
>>> use case for SMP
On Sat, 17 Feb 2018 10:07:38 +0100
Jan Kiszka wrote:
[...]
> > Seems like no one is doing guest debugging with kvm on x86 except
> > me, and I'm only doing it too infrequently now: This one broke that
> > use case for SMP guests long ago. How was it tested?
> >
> > To
On 2018-02-17 14:27, Alex Bennée wrote:
>
> Jan Kiszka writes:
>
>> On 2018-02-17 09:56, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>> On 2017-02-16 15:31, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
From: Claudio Imbrenda
When GDB issues a "vCont", QEMU was not handling it
Jan Kiszka writes:
> On 2018-02-17 09:56, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> On 2017-02-16 15:31, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>> From: Claudio Imbrenda
>>>
>>> When GDB issues a "vCont", QEMU was not handling it correctly when
>>> multiple VCPUs are active.
>>> For
On 2018-02-17 09:56, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2017-02-16 15:31, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> From: Claudio Imbrenda
>>
>> When GDB issues a "vCont", QEMU was not handling it correctly when
>> multiple VCPUs are active.
>> For vCont, for each thread (VCPU), it can be
On 2017-02-16 15:31, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> From: Claudio Imbrenda
>
> When GDB issues a "vCont", QEMU was not handling it correctly when
> multiple VCPUs are active.
> For vCont, for each thread (VCPU), it can be specified whether to
> single step, continue or stop
Paolo Bonzini writes:
> From: Claudio Imbrenda
>
> When GDB issues a "vCont", QEMU was not handling it correctly when
> multiple VCPUs are active.
> For vCont, for each thread (VCPU), it can be specified whether to
> single step, continue or