Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 12/21/2009 01:43 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
Please stop thinking so :) Especially about "user driven upgrades".
Why combine disadvantages of vitalization with pain of physical HW
management? Or may be next step will be to require uploading of CPU
microcode to take advantag
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 08:28:20PM +0100, Sebastian Herbszt wrote:
> Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 07:24:43PM +0100, Sebastian Herbszt wrote:
> >>Does any OS (Windows?) depend on the tables the bios creates (e.g. smbios)
> >>for licensing? It would be ugly if Windows wants you to r
Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 07:24:43PM +0100, Sebastian Herbszt wrote:
Does any OS (Windows?) depend on the tables the bios creates (e.g. smbios)
for licensing? It would be ugly if Windows wants you to re-activate after a
reboot
following a migration to newer qemu version and th
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 07:24:43PM +0100, Sebastian Herbszt wrote:
> Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 11:26:12AM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> >>On 12/21/2009 10:43 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> There are some really ugly corner cases here. For instance, guest
> is running and
Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 11:26:12AM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 12/21/2009 10:43 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
>>There are some really ugly corner cases here. For instance, guest
>>is running and the user does a yum update which upgrades the qemu
>>package. This includes layi
