On 25.07.2011, at 14:49, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 07:47:51AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>> On 07/25/2011 07:44 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>>
>>> On 25.07.2011, at 14:05, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>>
On 25 July 2011 12:48, Peter Maydell wrote:
> For ARM you ab
On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 07:47:51AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 07/25/2011 07:44 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
> >
> >On 25.07.2011, at 14:05, Peter Maydell wrote:
> >
> >>On 25 July 2011 12:48, Peter Maydell wrote:
> >>>For ARM you absolutely should not be relying on the default
> >>>machine ty
On 07/25/2011 07:44 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 25.07.2011, at 14:05, Peter Maydell wrote:
On 25 July 2011 12:48, Peter Maydell wrote:
For ARM you absolutely should not be relying on the default
machine type (not least because it's an incredibly ancient
dev board which nobody uses any more)
On 25.07.2011, at 14:05, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 25 July 2011 12:48, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> For ARM you absolutely should not be relying on the default
>> machine type (not least because it's an incredibly ancient
>> dev board which nobody uses any more). An ARM kernel is
>> generally fairly
On 2011-07-25 14:22, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 25 July 2011 13:18, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> On 2011-07-25 14:05, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>> In fact having thought about it a bit I'm going to go further
>>> and say that the whole idea of a "default machine" is a rather
>>> x86-centric idea -- most archit
On 07/25/2011 05:59 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-07-25 12:45, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
That's an excuse, not a practical solution. We have to be able to
work with any qemu. eg. the qemu in current Fedora Rawhide which
supports only -machine accel=, or qemu in other distros which are also
bra
On 25 July 2011 13:18, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2011-07-25 14:05, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> In fact having thought about it a bit I'm going to go further
>> and say that the whole idea of a "default machine" is a rather
>> x86-centric idea -- most architectures don't really have a
>> single machine ty
On 2011-07-25 14:05, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 25 July 2011 12:48, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> For ARM you absolutely should not be relying on the default
>> machine type (not least because it's an incredibly ancient
>> dev board which nobody uses any more). An ARM kernel is
>> generally fairly specif
On 25 July 2011 12:48, Peter Maydell wrote:
> For ARM you absolutely should not be relying on the default
> machine type (not least because it's an incredibly ancient
> dev board which nobody uses any more). An ARM kernel is
> generally fairly specific to the hardware platform being
> emulated, so
On 2011-07-25 13:39, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Jan Kiszka writes:
>
>> On 2011-07-25 12:45, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 12:33:01PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-07-25 11:41, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 12:38:37PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wro
On 25 July 2011 11:45, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> So what you're saying is we have to parse qemu -machine \? output by
> looking for the string '(default)'? eg:
>
> $ ./arm-softmmu/qemu-system-arm -machine \?|fgrep '(default)'
> integratorcp ARM Integrator/CP (ARM926EJ-S) (default)
For ARM you
Jan Kiszka writes:
> On 2011-07-25 12:45, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 12:33:01PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>> On 2011-07-25 11:41, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 12:38:37PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> From: Jan Kiszka
>
> -machine someh
On 2011-07-25 12:45, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 12:33:01PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> On 2011-07-25 11:41, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>>> On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 12:38:37PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
From: Jan Kiszka
-machine somehow suggests that it selects t
On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 12:33:01PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2011-07-25 11:41, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 12:38:37PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >> From: Jan Kiszka
> >>
> >> -machine somehow suggests that it selects the machine, but it doesn't.
> >> Fix that before t
On 2011-07-25 11:41, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 12:38:37PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> From: Jan Kiszka
>>
>> -machine somehow suggests that it selects the machine, but it doesn't.
>> Fix that before this command is set in stone.
>>
>> Actually, -machine should supersede -
On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 12:38:37PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> From: Jan Kiszka
>
> -machine somehow suggests that it selects the machine, but it doesn't.
> Fix that before this command is set in stone.
>
> Actually, -machine should supersede -M and allow to introduce arbitrary
> per-machine opti
On 07/23/2011 05:38 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
From: Jan Kiszka
-machine somehow suggests that it selects the machine, but it doesn't.
Fix that before this command is set in stone.
Actually, -machine should supersede -M and allow to introduce arbitrary
per-machine options to the command line. That w
From: Jan Kiszka
-machine somehow suggests that it selects the machine, but it doesn't.
Fix that before this command is set in stone.
Actually, -machine should supersede -M and allow to introduce arbitrary
per-machine options to the command line. That will change the internal
realization again,
18 matches
Mail list logo
