Am 07.01.2011 22:19, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 07, 2011 at 08:33:20PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> Am 07.01.2011 20:10, Gleb Natapov wrote:
>> We are on a good track now. I predict that we will be left with only one
>> or two major additional features in qemu-kvm in a few months from
On Fri, Jan 07, 2011 at 08:33:20PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Am 07.01.2011 20:10, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> We are on a good track now. I predict that we will be left with only one
> or two major additional features in qemu-kvm in a few months from now,
> no more duplications with subtl
Am 07.01.2011 20:10, Gleb Natapov wrote:
We are on a good track now. I predict that we will be left with only one
or two major additional features in qemu-kvm in a few months from now,
no more duplications with subtle differences, and production-grade kvm
upstream stability.
>>>
On Fri, Jan 07, 2011 at 07:24:00PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Am 07.01.2011 18:53, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 07, 2011 at 06:30:57PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >> Am 07.01.2011 18:16, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Jan 07, 2011 at 05:59:34PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Am 07.01.2011
Am 07.01.2011 19:24, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Am 07.01.2011 18:53, Gleb Natapov wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 07, 2011 at 06:30:57PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>> Am 07.01.2011 18:16, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Fri, Jan 07, 2011 at 05:59:34PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Am 07.01.2011 17:53, Gleb Natapov wrot
Am 07.01.2011 18:53, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 07, 2011 at 06:30:57PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> Am 07.01.2011 18:16, Gleb Natapov wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jan 07, 2011 at 05:59:34PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
Am 07.01.2011 17:53, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 07, 2011 at 04:57:31PM +
On Fri, Jan 07, 2011 at 06:30:57PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Am 07.01.2011 18:16, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 07, 2011 at 05:59:34PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >> Am 07.01.2011 17:53, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Jan 07, 2011 at 04:57:31PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
Am 07.01.2011 18:16, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 07, 2011 at 05:59:34PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> Am 07.01.2011 17:53, Gleb Natapov wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jan 07, 2011 at 04:57:31PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
Hi,
does anyone immediately know if this hunk from vl.c
@@ -127
On Fri, Jan 07, 2011 at 05:59:34PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Am 07.01.2011 17:53, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 07, 2011 at 04:57:31PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> does anyone immediately know if this hunk from vl.c
> >>
> >> @@ -1278,6 +1197,10 @@ void qemu_system_reset_reque
Am 07.01.2011 17:53, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 07, 2011 at 04:57:31PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> does anyone immediately know if this hunk from vl.c
>>
>> @@ -1278,6 +1197,10 @@ void qemu_system_reset_request(void)
>> } else {
>> reset_requested = 1;
>> }
>> +
On Fri, Jan 07, 2011 at 04:57:31PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Hi,
>
> does anyone immediately know if this hunk from vl.c
>
> @@ -1278,6 +1197,10 @@ void qemu_system_reset_request(void)
> } else {
> reset_requested = 1;
> }
> +if (cpu_single_env) {
> +cpu_single_env
11 matches
Mail list logo