On Wednesday 11 November 2009, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> > But why? Why do we have to emulate the entire HBA for the BIOS?
> > The HBA is emulated, too, and just uses the bdrv interface
> > internally anyway.
> > So IMHO it makes far more sense to skip the HBA emulation in
>
Hannes Reinecke wrote:
But why? Why do we have to emulate the entire HBA for the BIOS?
The HBA is emulated, too, and just uses the bdrv interface
internally anyway.
So IMHO it makes far more sense to skip the HBA emulation in
the BIOS completely and just use the bdrv interface directly
here.
Anthony Liguori wrote:
> Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
>> On 11/09/09 17:06, Paul Brook wrote:
>>> On Tuesday 08 September 2009, Anthony Liguori wrote:
Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> $subject says pretty much everything.
>
> extboot.[cS] are a straight copy from the kvm tree. The windup in
> v
Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
On 11/09/09 17:06, Paul Brook wrote:
On Tuesday 08 September 2009, Anthony Liguori wrote:
Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
$subject says pretty much everything.
extboot.[cS] are a straight copy from the kvm tree. The windup in
vl,c
and hw/pc.c is done slightly different, I've added
On 11/09/09 17:06, Paul Brook wrote:
On Tuesday 08 September 2009, Anthony Liguori wrote:
Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
$subject says pretty much everything.
extboot.[cS] are a straight copy from the kvm tree. The windup in vl,c
and hw/pc.c is done slightly different, I've added a function to lookup
t
On Tuesday 08 September 2009, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> > $subject says pretty much everything.
> >
> > extboot.[cS] are a straight copy from the kvm tree. The windup in vl,c
> > and hw/pc.c is done slightly different, I've added a function to lookup
> > the boot drive instea