On 29.09.2012, at 16:11, Blue Swirl wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 12:54 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 29.09.2012, at 13:46, Blue Swirl wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 8:51 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 26.09.2012, at 22:03, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>>
On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 12:54 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
>
> On 29.09.2012, at 13:46, Blue Swirl wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 8:51 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 26.09.2012, at 22:03, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>>>
Alexander Graf writes:
> On 22.09.2012, at 15:31, B
On 29.09.2012, at 13:46, Blue Swirl wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 8:51 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 26.09.2012, at 22:03, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>>
>>> Alexander Graf writes:
>>>
On 22.09.2012, at 15:31, Blue Swirl wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 3:08 AM, Dav
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 8:51 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
>
> On 26.09.2012, at 22:03, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>
>> Alexander Graf writes:
>>
>>> On 22.09.2012, at 15:31, Blue Swirl wrote:
>>>
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 3:08 AM, David Gibson
wrote:
> Below is a patch which implements
Am Wed, 26 Sep 2012 10:56:07 +0200
schrieb Alexander Graf :
>
>
> On 26.09.2012, at 03:18, David Gibson wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 03:03:10AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
[snip]
> >> spapr-nvram:
> >>
> >> if (!drive || checksum_is_bad(drive))
> >>autogenerate_nvram_contents();
On 26.09.2012, at 22:03, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> Alexander Graf writes:
>
>> On 22.09.2012, at 15:31, Blue Swirl wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 3:08 AM, David Gibson
>>> wrote:
Below is a patch which implements the (PAPR mandated) NVRAM for the
pseries machine. It raises
Alexander Graf writes:
> On 22.09.2012, at 15:31, Blue Swirl wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 3:08 AM, David Gibson
>> wrote:
>>> Below is a patch which implements the (PAPR mandated) NVRAM for the
>>> pseries machine. It raises a couple of generic questions.
>>>
>>> First, this adds a new
On 26.09.2012, at 03:18, David Gibson wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 03:03:10AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>> On 26.09.2012, at 02:27, David Gibson wrote:
>>> On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 12:38:59PM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 24.09.2012, at 02:31, David Gibson wrote:
> [snip]
> So,
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 03:03:10AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
> On 26.09.2012, at 02:27, David Gibson wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 12:38:59PM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
> >> On 24.09.2012, at 02:31, David Gibson wrote:
[snip]
> >>> So, if you look at the patch there is actually a -device
On 26.09.2012, at 02:27, David Gibson wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 12:38:59PM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>
>> On 24.09.2012, at 02:31, David Gibson wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 01:31:08PM +, Blue Swirl wrote:
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 3:08 AM, David Gibson
wrote:
>>
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 12:38:59PM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
> On 24.09.2012, at 02:31, David Gibson wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 01:31:08PM +, Blue Swirl wrote:
> >> On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 3:08 AM, David Gibson
> >> wrote:
> >>> Below is a patch which implements the (PAPR mand
On 24.09.2012, at 14:25, David Gibson wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 12:36:33PM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>> On 21.09.2012, at 05:08, David Gibson wrote:
> [snip]
>>> +void spapr_create_nvram(sPAPREnvironment *spapr)
>>> +{
>>> +QemuOpts *machine_opts;
>>> +DeviceState *dev;
>>> +
>>
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 12:36:33PM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
> On 21.09.2012, at 05:08, David Gibson wrote:
[snip]
> > +void spapr_create_nvram(sPAPREnvironment *spapr)
> > +{
> > +QemuOpts *machine_opts;
> > +DeviceState *dev;
> > +
> > +dev = qdev_create(&spapr->vio_bus->bus, "spap
On 24.09.2012, at 02:31, David Gibson wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 01:31:08PM +, Blue Swirl wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 3:08 AM, David Gibson
>> wrote:
>>> Below is a patch which implements the (PAPR mandated) NVRAM for the
>>> pseries machine. It raises a couple of generic questi
On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 02:26:43PM +, Blue Swirl wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 22.09.2012, at 15:31, Blue Swirl wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 3:08 AM, David Gibson
> >> wrote:
> >>> Below is a patch which implements the (PAPR mandate
On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 01:31:08PM +, Blue Swirl wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 3:08 AM, David Gibson
> wrote:
> > Below is a patch which implements the (PAPR mandated) NVRAM for the
> > pseries machine. It raises a couple of generic questions.
> >
> > First, this adds a new "nvram" machine
On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
>
> On 22.09.2012, at 15:31, Blue Swirl wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 3:08 AM, David Gibson
>> wrote:
>>> Below is a patch which implements the (PAPR mandated) NVRAM for the
>>> pseries machine. It raises a couple of generic questio
On 22.09.2012, at 15:31, Blue Swirl wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 3:08 AM, David Gibson
> wrote:
>> Below is a patch which implements the (PAPR mandated) NVRAM for the
>> pseries machine. It raises a couple of generic questions.
>>
>> First, this adds a new "nvram" machine option which is
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 3:08 AM, David Gibson
wrote:
> Below is a patch which implements the (PAPR mandated) NVRAM for the
> pseries machine. It raises a couple of generic questions.
>
> First, this adds a new "nvram" machine option which is used to give a
> block device id to back the NVRAM so i
19 matches
Mail list logo
