* Programmingkid (programmingk...@gmail.com) wrote:
> The mouse cursor stops working properly under Windows 3.1 and Windows NT 4.0
> after a few minutes of use. The cursor will want to stay at the very edges of
> the QEMU window.
Can you try and bisect which change caused the problem?
Dave
--
The mouse cursor stops working properly under Windows 3.1 and Windows NT 4.0
after a few minutes of use. The cursor will want to stay at the very edges of
the QEMU window.
On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 04:24:37PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> I've put up a draft release schedule at:
> https://wiki.qemu.org/Planning/3.0
>
> 2018-04-24 Beginning of development phase
> 2018-07-03 Soft feature freeze.
> 2018-07-10 Hard feature freeze. Tag rc0
> 2018-07-17
On 22 May 2018 at 17:34, Warner Losh wrote:
> On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 9:50 AM, Peter Maydell
> wrote:
>> The usual recommendation is to submit early and often.
>
>
> Should I do a RFC or preview submission then of the first dozen patches
> maybe as I work out integrating back the bug/compile fixe
On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 9:50 AM, Peter Maydell
wrote:
> On 22 May 2018 at 16:39, Warner Losh wrote:
> > On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 9:24 AM, Peter Maydell >
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> I've put up a draft release schedule at:
> >> https://wiki.qemu.org/Planning/3.0
> >>
> >> 2018-04-24 Beginning of d
On 22 May 2018 at 16:39, Warner Losh wrote:
> On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 9:24 AM, Peter Maydell
> wrote:
>>
>> I've put up a draft release schedule at:
>> https://wiki.qemu.org/Planning/3.0
>>
>> 2018-04-24 Beginning of development phase
>> 2018-07-03 Soft feature freeze.
>> 2018-07-10
On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 9:24 AM, Peter Maydell
wrote:
> I've put up a draft release schedule at:
> https://wiki.qemu.org/Planning/3.0
>
> 2018-04-24 Beginning of development phase
> 2018-07-03 Soft feature freeze.
> 2018-07-10 Hard feature freeze. Tag rc0
> 2018-07-17 Tag rc1
I've put up a draft release schedule at:
https://wiki.qemu.org/Planning/3.0
2018-04-24 Beginning of development phase
2018-07-03 Soft feature freeze.
2018-07-10 Hard feature freeze. Tag rc0
2018-07-17 Tag rc1
2018-07-24 Tag rc2
2018-07-31 Tag rc3
2018-08-07 Relea
On Thu, 23 Nov 2017 12:17:54 +0100
Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 23/11/2017 11:57, Thomas Huth wrote:
> > On 23.11.2017 11:17, Peter Maydell wrote:
> >> On 23 November 2017 at 10:03, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 08:14:28 +0100
> >>> Thomas Huth wrote:
> >>>
...
>
> "hax"
On 23/11/2017 15:01, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 23.11.2017 14:57, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> On 23 November 2017 at 13:51, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>> On 23/11/2017 14:13, Peter Maydell wrote:
On 23 November 2017 at 13:02, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> In theory I don't like it either (and I hadn't thou
On 23.11.2017 14:57, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 23 November 2017 at 13:51, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> On 23/11/2017 14:13, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>> On 23 November 2017 at 13:02, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
In theory I don't like it either (and I hadn't thought about it until
today). In practice,
On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 02:51:51PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 23/11/2017 14:13, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > On 23 November 2017 at 13:02, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >> In theory I don't like it either (and I hadn't thought about it until
> >> today). In practice, qemu-kvm is not going away from
>
On 23 November 2017 at 13:51, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 23/11/2017 14:13, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> On 23 November 2017 at 13:02, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>> In theory I don't like it either (and I hadn't thought about it until
>>> today). In practice, qemu-kvm is not going away from
>>> blogs/script
On 23/11/2017 14:13, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 23 November 2017 at 13:02, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> In theory I don't like it either (and I hadn't thought about it until
>> today). In practice, qemu-kvm is not going away from
>> blogs/scripts/tutorials in a decade, so we might as well embrace it...
On 23/11/2017 14:13, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Nov 2017 14:02:12 +0100
> Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>> On 23/11/2017 13:39, Cornelia Huck wrote:
>>> I'm wondering how many people want to run e.g. x86_64-on-x86_64
>>> _without_ using an available kvm (and I expect those people to
>>> explicitl
On 23/11/2017 14:23, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 02:08:42PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> On 23/11/2017 13:59, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
I'm not sure I like that. For me, qemu-kvm comes with the connotation
of "there used to be a fork of qemu for kvm usage, and we
On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 02:08:42PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 23/11/2017 13:59, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> >> I'm not sure I like that. For me, qemu-kvm comes with the connotation
> >> of "there used to be a fork of qemu for kvm usage, and we stuck with
> >> the name because it is likely sca
On 23 November 2017 at 13:02, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> In theory I don't like it either (and I hadn't thought about it until
> today). In practice, qemu-kvm is not going away from
> blogs/scripts/tutorials in a decade, so we might as well embrace it...
Isn't this distro-specific? In ubuntu by defa
On Thu, 23 Nov 2017 14:02:12 +0100
Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 23/11/2017 13:39, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > I'm wondering how many people want to run e.g. x86_64-on-x86_64
> > _without_ using an available kvm (and I expect those people to
> > explicitly specify tcg).
>
> I disagree. I expect them
On 23/11/2017 13:59, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>> I'm not sure I like that. For me, qemu-kvm comes with the connotation
>> of "there used to be a fork of qemu for kvm usage, and we stuck with
>> the name because it is likely scattered through scripts".
>
> Yes, qemu-kvm is a historical artifact in
On 23/11/2017 13:39, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> I'm wondering how many people want to run e.g. x86_64-on-x86_64
> _without_ using an available kvm (and I expect those people to
> explicitly specify tcg).
I disagree. I expect them to be "power users" enough to know that
qemu-system-x86_64 defaults to
On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 01:39:24PM +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Nov 2017 13:26:14 +0100
> Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
> > On 23/11/2017 13:09, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > > On Thu, 23 Nov 2017 13:05:33 +0100
> > > Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > >
> > >> On 23/11/2017 12:57, Thomas Huth wrote:
On Thu, 23 Nov 2017 13:26:14 +0100
Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 23/11/2017 13:09, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > On Thu, 23 Nov 2017 13:05:33 +0100
> > Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >
> >> On 23/11/2017 12:57, Thomas Huth wrote:
> >>> On 23.11.2017 12:17, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 23/11/2017 11:57
On 23/11/2017 13:09, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Nov 2017 13:05:33 +0100
> Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>> On 23/11/2017 12:57, Thomas Huth wrote:
>>> On 23.11.2017 12:17, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 23/11/2017 11:57, Thomas Huth wrote:
>>> [...]
> I've put "--accel kvm:hax:tcg" also o
On Thu, 23 Nov 2017 13:05:33 +0100
Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 23/11/2017 12:57, Thomas Huth wrote:
> > On 23.11.2017 12:17, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >> On 23/11/2017 11:57, Thomas Huth wrote:
> > [...]
> >>> I've put "--accel kvm:hax:tcg" also on the doable list since I don't
> >>> remember an
On 23/11/2017 12:57, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 23.11.2017 12:17, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> On 23/11/2017 11:57, Thomas Huth wrote:
> [...]
>>> I've put "--accel kvm:hax:tcg" also on the doable list since I don't
>>> remember any objections to that idea so far -- feel free to move it to
>>> the controve
On 23.11.2017 12:17, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 23/11/2017 11:57, Thomas Huth wrote:
[...]
>> I've put "--accel kvm:hax:tcg" also on the doable list since I don't
>> remember any objections to that idea so far -- feel free to move it to
>> the controversial list instead if you think it needs more di
On 23.11.2017 12:33, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 12:24:24PM +0100, Thomas Huth wrote:
>> On 23.11.2017 12:11, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>>> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 11:57:34AM +0100, Thomas Huth wrote:
On 23.11.2017 11:17, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 23 November 2017 a
On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 12:24:24PM +0100, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 23.11.2017 12:11, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 11:57:34AM +0100, Thomas Huth wrote:
> >> On 23.11.2017 11:17, Peter Maydell wrote:
> >>> On 23 November 2017 at 10:03, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Mon, 13 N
On 23.11.2017 12:14, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 10:17:48AM +, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> On 23 November 2017 at 10:03, Cornelia Huck wrote:
>>> On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 08:14:28 +0100
>>> Thomas Huth wrote:
>>>
By the way, before everybody now introduces "2.12" machine t
On 23.11.2017 12:11, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 11:57:34AM +0100, Thomas Huth wrote:
>> On 23.11.2017 11:17, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>> On 23 November 2017 at 10:03, Cornelia Huck wrote:
On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 08:14:28 +0100
Thomas Huth wrote:
> By the way,
On 23/11/2017 11:57, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 23.11.2017 11:17, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> On 23 November 2017 at 10:03, Cornelia Huck wrote:
>>> On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 08:14:28 +0100
>>> Thomas Huth wrote:
>>>
By the way, before everybody now introduces "2.12" machine types ... is
there alrea
On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 10:17:48AM +, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 23 November 2017 at 10:03, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 08:14:28 +0100
> > Thomas Huth wrote:
> >
> >> By the way, before everybody now introduces "2.12" machine types ... is
> >> there already a consensus that th
On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 11:57:34AM +0100, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 23.11.2017 11:17, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > On 23 November 2017 at 10:03, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> >> On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 08:14:28 +0100
> >> Thomas Huth wrote:
> >>
> >>> By the way, before everybody now introduces "2.12" machine typ
On 23.11.2017 11:17, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 23 November 2017 at 10:03, Cornelia Huck wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 08:14:28 +0100
>> Thomas Huth wrote:
>>
>>> By the way, before everybody now introduces "2.12" machine types ... is
>>> there already a consensus that the next version will be "2.
On 23 November 2017 at 10:03, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 08:14:28 +0100
> Thomas Huth wrote:
>
>> By the way, before everybody now introduces "2.12" machine types ... is
>> there already a consensus that the next version will be "2.12" ?
>>
>> A couple of months ago, we discussed
On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 08:14:28 +0100
Thomas Huth wrote:
> By the way, before everybody now introduces "2.12" machine types ... is
> there already a consensus that the next version will be "2.12" ?
>
> A couple of months ago, we discussed that we could maybe do a 3.0 after
> 2.11, e.g. here:
>
>
On 13.11.2017 10:53, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 13 November 2017 at 07:14, Thomas Huth wrote:
>> By the way, before everybody now introduces "2.12" machine types ... is
>> there already a consensus that the next version will be "2.12" ?
>>
>> A couple of months ago, we discussed that we could maybe
On 13 November 2017 at 10:03, Cédric Le Goater wrote:
> One of the sweeping change for 3.0 could be to stop to maintaining
> migration compatibility with older versions (2.x). Even if the
> feature is really a must have in some cluster environment, the
> code (and the developer) is starting to suf
On 11/13/2017 10:53 AM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 13 November 2017 at 07:14, Thomas Huth wrote:
>> By the way, before everybody now introduces "2.12" machine types ... is
>> there already a consensus that the next version will be "2.12" ?
>>
>> A couple of months ago, we discussed that we could ma
On 13 November 2017 at 07:14, Thomas Huth wrote:
> By the way, before everybody now introduces "2.12" machine types ... is
> there already a consensus that the next version will be "2.12" ?
>
> A couple of months ago, we discussed that we could maybe do a 3.0 after
> 2.11, e.g. here:
>
> https://
On 10.11.2017 16:20, Cédric Le Goater wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Cédric Le Goater
> ---
> hw/ppc/spapr.c | 16 +++-
> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/hw/ppc/spapr.c b/hw/ppc/spapr.c
> index d682f013d422..a2dcbee07214 100644
> --- a/hw/ppc/spapr.c
> +++ b
42 matches
Mail list logo
