Hi,
>> qemu is hung at:
>> main thread:
>>#0 read
>
> Is qxl doing a blocking read? If so, that's a bug in qxl.
It used to do that, with the latest spice pull it is gone[1]. And this
fix is exactly what broke screendump.
Spice does lazy rendering on the server side to avoid burning cp
On 03/06/2012 10:26 AM, Alon Levy wrote:
On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 10:16:42AM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 03/06/2012 09:56 AM, Alon Levy wrote:
On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 07:51:29AM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 03/06/2012 07:16 AM, Alon Levy wrote:
On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 09:24:27AM -0300
On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 10:16:42AM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 03/06/2012 09:56 AM, Alon Levy wrote:
> >On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 07:51:29AM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> >>On 03/06/2012 07:16 AM, Alon Levy wrote:
> >>>On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 09:24:27AM -0300, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
> On
On 03/06/2012 09:56 AM, Alon Levy wrote:
On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 07:51:29AM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 03/06/2012 07:16 AM, Alon Levy wrote:
On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 09:24:27AM -0300, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 08:36:34 +0100
Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
Hi,
How would the
On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 05:56:49PM +0200, Alon Levy wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 07:51:29AM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> > On 03/06/2012 07:16 AM, Alon Levy wrote:
> > >On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 09:24:27AM -0300, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
> > >>On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 08:36:34 +0100
> > >>Gerd Hoffma
On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 07:51:29AM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 03/06/2012 07:16 AM, Alon Levy wrote:
> >On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 09:24:27AM -0300, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
> >>On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 08:36:34 +0100
> >>Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >How would the parallel execu
On 03/06/2012 08:23 AM, Alon Levy wrote:
On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 10:53:42AM -0300, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
So cutting off a part of the email is a good way to win arguments? cool
trick.
It doesn't work as well if you acknowledge that was the motivation ;-) (j/k)
I agree a reproducer is a good
On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 10:53:42AM -0300, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 07:51:29 -0600
> Anthony Liguori wrote:
>
> > On 03/06/2012 07:16 AM, Alon Levy wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 09:24:27AM -0300, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
> > >> On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 08:36:34 +0100
> > >> Ger
On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 07:51:29 -0600
Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 03/06/2012 07:16 AM, Alon Levy wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 09:24:27AM -0300, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
> >> On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 08:36:34 +0100
> >> Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> >>
> >>>Hi,
> >>>
> > How would the parallel execu
On 03/06/2012 07:16 AM, Alon Levy wrote:
On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 09:24:27AM -0300, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 08:36:34 +0100
Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
Hi,
How would the parallel execution facility be opaque to the implementer?
screendump returns, screendump_async needs to pass
On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 09:24:27AM -0300, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 08:36:34 +0100
> Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > >> How would the parallel execution facility be opaque to the implementer?
> > >> screendump returns, screendump_async needs to pass a closure. You can
On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 08:36:34 +0100
Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> >> How would the parallel execution facility be opaque to the implementer?
> >> screendump returns, screendump_async needs to pass a closure. You can
> >> automatically generate any amount of code, but you can only have a
> >> s
On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 09:10:00AM +0100, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> On 03/06/12 08:56, Alon Levy wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 08:36:34AM +0100, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> How would the parallel execution facility be opaque to the implementer?
> screendump returns, screendum
On 03/06/12 08:56, Alon Levy wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 08:36:34AM +0100, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
How would the parallel execution facility be opaque to the implementer?
screendump returns, screendump_async needs to pass a closure. You can
automatically generate any am
On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 08:36:34AM +0100, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> >> How would the parallel execution facility be opaque to the implementer?
> >> screendump returns, screendump_async needs to pass a closure. You can
> >> automatically generate any amount of code, but you can only have a
>
On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 08:36:34AM +0100, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> >> How would the parallel execution facility be opaque to the implementer?
> >> screendump returns, screendump_async needs to pass a closure. You can
> >> automatically generate any amount of code, but you can only have a
>
Hi,
>> How would the parallel execution facility be opaque to the implementer?
>> screendump returns, screendump_async needs to pass a closure. You can
>> automatically generate any amount of code, but you can only have a
>> single function implementation with longjmp/coroutine, or having a
>> s
On Mon, 5 Mar 2012 20:58:08 +0200
Alon Levy wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 08:17:52PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> > On 03/05/2012 08:09 PM, Alon Levy wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 02:31:42PM -0300, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 05 Mar 2012 11:27:07 -0600
> > > > Anthony Liguori
On 03/05/2012 12:22 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 03/05/2012 08:16 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
We're pretty close to being there. Luiz, about how long do you
think before we get there?
It's a pity to add new commands along the way.
It's more complicated than this unfortunately.
A client
On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 08:17:52PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 03/05/2012 08:09 PM, Alon Levy wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 02:31:42PM -0300, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
> > > On Mon, 05 Mar 2012 11:27:07 -0600
> > > Anthony Liguori wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 03/05/2012 11:20 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 03/05/2012 08:16 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>
>>
>>>We're pretty close to being there. Luiz, about how long do you
>>> think before we get there?
>>
>> It's a pity to add new commands along the way.
>
> It's more complicated than this unfortunately.
>
> A client needs to be able to determin
On 03/05/2012 08:09 PM, Alon Levy wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 02:31:42PM -0300, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
> > On Mon, 05 Mar 2012 11:27:07 -0600
> > Anthony Liguori wrote:
> >
> > > On 03/05/2012 11:20 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> > > > On 03/05/2012 04:33 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >
On 03/05/2012 11:29 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 03/05/2012 07:27 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 03/05/2012 11:20 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 03/05/2012 04:33 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
async in QEMU doesn't mean "generate a QMP event when you're done".
It should mean execute this closure when you f
On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 02:31:42PM -0300, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Mar 2012 11:27:07 -0600
> Anthony Liguori wrote:
>
> > On 03/05/2012 11:20 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> > > On 03/05/2012 04:33 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> async in QEMU doesn't mean "generate a QMP event
On Mon, 05 Mar 2012 19:29:14 +0200
Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 03/05/2012 07:27 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> > On 03/05/2012 11:20 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> >> On 03/05/2012 04:33 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> async in QEMU doesn't mean "generate a QMP event when you're done".
> >>> It sh
On Mon, 05 Mar 2012 11:27:07 -0600
Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 03/05/2012 11:20 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> > On 03/05/2012 04:33 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> async in QEMU doesn't mean "generate a QMP event when you're done".
> >> It should mean execute this closure when you finish (fun
On 03/05/2012 07:27 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 03/05/2012 11:20 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
>> On 03/05/2012 04:33 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> async in QEMU doesn't mean "generate a QMP event when you're done".
>>> It should mean execute this closure when you finish (function pointer
>>>
On 03/05/2012 11:20 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 03/05/2012 04:33 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
async in QEMU doesn't mean "generate a QMP event when you're done".
It should mean execute this closure when you finish (function pointer
+ opaque).
The QMP event should be dispatched from the closure suc
On 03/05/2012 04:33 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>
>
> async in QEMU doesn't mean "generate a QMP event when you're done".
> It should mean execute this closure when you finish (function pointer
> + opaque).
>
> The QMP event should be dispatched from the closure such that the
> screendump code does
On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 08:33:06AM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 03/05/2012 08:16 AM, Alon Levy wrote:
> >adds a handler for the following qmp screendump-async command.
> >
> >graphics_console_init signature change required touching every user, but
> >no implementation of the new vga_hw_screen
On 03/05/2012 08:16 AM, Alon Levy wrote:
adds a handler for the following qmp screendump-async command.
graphics_console_init signature change required touching every user, but
no implementation of the new vga_hw_screen_dump_async_ptr is provided
in this patch.
Signed-off-by: Alon Levy
---
co
adds a handler for the following qmp screendump-async command.
graphics_console_init signature change required touching every user, but
no implementation of the new vga_hw_screen_dump_async_ptr is provided
in this patch.
Signed-off-by: Alon Levy
---
console.c|4
console.h
32 matches
Mail list logo
