I disagree. /bin/sh makes a very flexible config file format that I
use. I use it on win32, Linux and Mac OS X.
I would prefer that you write another cross platform shell, than
another config file. At least that way I could use the same config
tool for more than one application.
Joe Batt wrote:
I disagree. /bin/sh makes a very flexible config file format that I
use. I use it on win32, Linux and Mac OS X.
The problem with only taking command line arguments is that the number
and size of command line arguments are severely limited on certain
platforms. This is why
Anthony Liguori wrote:
Joe Batt wrote:
I disagree. /bin/sh makes a very flexible config file format that I
use. I use it on win32, Linux and Mac OS X.
The problem with only taking command line arguments is that the number
and size of command line arguments are severely limited on
Avi Kivity wrote:
Anthony Liguori wrote:
I think most people agree that we need a config file. I haven't seen
any comments on my config file patch though.
So, any comments on that patch? Any requirements on a format?
1. Any option should be settable either in the config file or
Anthony Liguori wrote:
1. Any option should be settable either in the config file or
command line. In other words, the user should not be forced to use a
config file. This is useful for management programs who keep all
options in an internal database, and for users who can experiment via
Paul Brook wrote:
Out of curiosity, why? If the options are store in some database, as is
likely, surely it is easier to generate a longish command line than to
generate a unique name for a file, remove it if it already exists, write
out the data, launch qemu, and clean up the file later? And
On Sunday 04 March 2007 11:48, Avi Kivity wrote:
Paul Brook wrote:
Out of curiosity, why? If the options are store in some database, as is
likely, surely it is easier to generate a longish command line than to
generate a unique name for a file, remove it if it already exists, write
out
Avi Kivity wrote:
Anthony Liguori wrote:
1. Any option should be settable either in the config file or
command line. In other words, the user should not be forced to use
a config file. This is useful for management programs who keep all
options in an internal database, and for users who
Chris Wilson wrote:
Hi Avi,
On Sun, 4 Mar 2007, Avi Kivity wrote:
Anthony Liguori wrote:
I think we should still provide the ability to set the most common
options via the command line. I'm also fine with specifying single
options on the command line. I suspect though that being able to
Anthony Liguori wrote:
I think most people agree that we need a config file. I haven't seen
any comments on my config file patch though.
So, any comments on that patch? Any requirements on a format?
1. Any option should be settable either in the config file or command
line. In other
Avi Kivity wrote:
Anthony Liguori wrote:
I think most people agree that we need a config file. I haven't seen
any comments on my config file patch though.
So, any comments on that patch? Any requirements on a format?
1. Any option should be settable either in the config file or
Paul Brook wrote:
On Thursday 01 March 2007 17:26, Laurent Vivier wrote:
Hi,
As I'm a newcomer, I don't know the story about qemu/pc and scsi disks, but
I propose a little patch to make SCSI disks visible.
See previous discussion about how the disk options need to be fixed properly.
Laurent Vivier wrote:
Paul Brook wrote:
On Thursday 01 March 2007 17:26, Laurent Vivier wrote:
Hi,
As I'm a newcomer, I don't know the story about qemu/pc and scsi disks, but
I propose a little patch to make SCSI disks visible.
See previous discussion about how the disk options
There's also no reason to limit to 7 disks, and we should support scsi
cdroms.
The reason for 7 is the number of available id on the scsi bus.
For wide scsi it is 15.
I wouldn't bet on wide scsi working.
For PCI based systems you can add more host adapters to get more devices. I
Paul Brook wrote:
There's also no reason to limit to 7 disks, and we should support scsi
cdroms.
The reason for 7 is the number of available id on the scsi bus.
For wide scsi it is 15.
I wouldn't bet on wide scsi working.
For PCI based systems you can add more host
Hi,
As I'm a newcomer, I don't know the story about qemu/pc and scsi disks, but I
propose a little patch to make SCSI disks visible. Disks are not bootable, I
think we should write a BIOS for that ?
Regards,
Laurent
--
- [EMAIL PROTECTED] --
Any sufficiently
On Thursday 01 March 2007 17:26, Laurent Vivier wrote:
Hi,
As I'm a newcomer, I don't know the story about qemu/pc and scsi disks, but
I propose a little patch to make SCSI disks visible.
See previous discussion about how the disk options need to be fixed properly.
Apart from anything else
17 matches
Mail list logo
