Fabien Chouteau writes:
>> The process is basically:
>>
>> * Add trace events that can work during TCG code generation (e.g., start TB,
>> start instruction fetch, memory access, etc.)
>>
>> * Let the user select which trace events to instrument, including both
>> "regular"
>> trace events and T
On 07/11/2011 12:50, Lluís Vilanova wrote:
> Fabien Chouteau writes:
>
>> On 04/11/2011 19:45, Lluís Vilanova wrote:
>>> I've only had a brief look into the changes, but I think the mechanism I
>>> implemented has a cleaner fit into QEMU, thanks to previous feedback from
>>> this
>>> list.
>
>>
Fabien Chouteau writes:
> On 04/11/2011 19:45, Lluís Vilanova wrote:
>> I've only had a brief look into the changes, but I think the mechanism I
>> implemented has a cleaner fit into QEMU, thanks to previous feedback from
>> this
>> list.
> I don't know about your implementation, can you give mo
On 04/11/2011 19:45, Lluís Vilanova wrote:
> Stefan Hajnoczi writes:
>
>> On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 10:35:28AM +0100, Fabien Chouteau wrote:
>>> On 03/11/2011 08:44, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 5:39 PM, Fabien Chouteau
wrote:
> On 29/10/2011 15:52, Alexander Graf wr
Stefan Hajnoczi writes:
> On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 10:35:28AM +0100, Fabien Chouteau wrote:
>> On 03/11/2011 08:44, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
>> > On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 5:39 PM, Fabien Chouteau
>> > wrote:
>> >> On 29/10/2011 15:52, Alexander Graf wrote:
>> > I took a quick peak at the qemu-trace.[
On 03.11.2011, at 01:36, Andreas Färber wrote:
> Am 03.11.2011 08:46, schrieb Markus Armbruster:
>> Anthony Liguori writes:
>>
>>> For the record, I'm opposed to ever having a stable plugin API.
>>>
>>> We aren't a closed source product. If people [don't] want to have to keep
>>> up
>>> with
On 04/11/2011 13:04, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 9:53 AM, Fabien Chouteau wrote:
>> On 04/11/2011 09:36, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
>>> On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 10:35:28AM +0100, Fabien Chouteau wrote:
On 03/11/2011 08:44, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 5:3
On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 9:53 AM, Fabien Chouteau wrote:
> On 04/11/2011 09:36, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 10:35:28AM +0100, Fabien Chouteau wrote:
>>> On 03/11/2011 08:44, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 5:39 PM, Fabien Chouteau
wrote:
> On 29/10
On 04/11/2011 09:36, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 10:35:28AM +0100, Fabien Chouteau wrote:
>> On 03/11/2011 08:44, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
>>> On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 5:39 PM, Fabien Chouteau
>>> wrote:
On 29/10/2011 15:52, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>> I took a quick peak at t
On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 10:35:28AM +0100, Fabien Chouteau wrote:
> On 03/11/2011 08:44, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 5:39 PM, Fabien Chouteau
> > wrote:
> >> On 29/10/2011 15:52, Alexander Graf wrote:
> > I took a quick peak at the qemu-trace.[ch] from couverture and it
> > l
On 03/11/2011 08:44, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 5:39 PM, Fabien Chouteau wrote:
>> On 29/10/2011 15:52, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>> The RTEMS guys use QEMU to do coverage testing of their kernel code.
>>> They run their test-cases and see if all of their code and branches
>>> ha
Am 03.11.2011 08:46, schrieb Markus Armbruster:
> Anthony Liguori writes:
>
>> For the record, I'm opposed to ever having a stable plugin API.
>>
>> We aren't a closed source product. If people [don't] want to have to keep up
>> with our changing internal interfaces, they can get their code merg
Anthony Liguori writes:
[...]
> For the record, I'm opposed to ever having a stable plugin API.
>
> We aren't a closed source product. If people want to have to keep up
> with our changing internal interfaces, they can get their code merged
> upstream.
Seconded.
Alexander Graf writes:
> Anthony Liguori wrote:
>> On 11/02/2011 01:17 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>> On 2011-11-02 18:44, Fabien Chouteau wrote:
On 31/10/2011 14:12, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 29 October 2011 14:52, Alexander Graf wrote:
>> A lot of people seem to also have code that doe
On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 5:39 PM, Fabien Chouteau wrote:
> On 29/10/2011 15:52, Alexander Graf wrote:
>> The RTEMS guys use QEMU to do coverage testing of their kernel code.
>> They run their test-cases and see if all of their code and branches
>> have been hit. Adacore seems to have a patches versi
On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 6:51 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> @@ -77,6 +78,20 @@ static DeviceInfo *qdev_find_info(BusInfo *bus_info,
> const ch
> continue;
> return info;
> }
> +
> + /* try to load an appropriately named module */
> + {
> + char *path = g_module_bu
Anthony Liguori writes:
> On 11/02/2011 03:24 PM, Blue Swirl wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 19:35, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>>> For the record, I'm opposed to ever having a stable plugin API.
>>>
>>> We aren't a closed source product. If people want to have to keep up with
>>> our changing inte
On 11/02/2011 03:24 PM, Blue Swirl wrote:
On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 19:35, Anthony Liguori wrote:
For the record, I'm opposed to ever having a stable plugin API.
We aren't a closed source product. If people want to have to keep up with
our changing internal interfaces, they can get their code me
On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 19:35, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 11/02/2011 02:27 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>
>> Peter Maydell wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2 November 2011 18:47, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>>
Jan Kiszka wrote:
> We should also be able to establish an EXPORT_SYMBOL concept, ie. only
On 11/02/2011 02:27 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
Peter Maydell wrote:
On 2 November 2011 18:47, Alexander Graf wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
We should also be able to establish an EXPORT_SYMBOL concept, ie. only
export those functions that are supposed to be part of a component API.
Will be some wo
Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 2 November 2011 18:47, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
>> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>
>>> We should also be able to establish an EXPORT_SYMBOL concept, ie. only
>>> export those functions that are supposed to be part of a component API.
>>> Will be some work initially, but shoul
On 2 November 2011 18:47, Alexander Graf wrote:
> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> We should also be able to establish an EXPORT_SYMBOL concept, ie. only
>> export those functions that are supposed to be part of a component API.
>> Will be some work initially, but should be off long term, both to QEMU
>> in m
On 2011-11-02 19:50, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 11/02/2011 01:46 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> On 2011-11-02 19:34, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>> Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 11/02/2011 01:17 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2011-11-02 18:44, Fabien Chouteau wrote:
>> On 31/10/2011 14:12, Peter Maydell
On 11/02/2011 01:34 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 11/02/2011 01:17 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-11-02 18:44, Fabien Chouteau wrote:
On 31/10/2011 14:12, Peter Maydell wrote:
On 29 October 2011 14:52, Alexander Graf wrote:
A lot of people seem to also have code that d
On 11/02/2011 01:46 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-11-02 19:34, Alexander Graf wrote:
Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 11/02/2011 01:17 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-11-02 18:44, Fabien Chouteau wrote:
On 31/10/2011 14:12, Peter Maydell wrote:
On 29 October 2011 14:52, Alexander Graf wrote:
A lot
Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2011-11-02 19:34, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
>> Anthony Liguori wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/02/2011 01:17 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>>
On 2011-11-02 18:44, Fabien Chouteau wrote:
> On 31/10/2011 14:12, Peter Maydell wrote:
>
>> On 29
On 2011-11-02 19:34, Alexander Graf wrote:
> Anthony Liguori wrote:
>> On 11/02/2011 01:17 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>> On 2011-11-02 18:44, Fabien Chouteau wrote:
On 31/10/2011 14:12, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 29 October 2011 14:52, Alexander Graf wrote:
>> A lot of people seem to also
Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 11/02/2011 01:17 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> On 2011-11-02 18:44, Fabien Chouteau wrote:
>>> On 31/10/2011 14:12, Peter Maydell wrote:
On 29 October 2011 14:52, Alexander Graf wrote:
> A lot of people seem to also have code that doesn't make sense
> upstream,
On 11/02/2011 01:17 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-11-02 18:44, Fabien Chouteau wrote:
On 31/10/2011 14:12, Peter Maydell wrote:
On 29 October 2011 14:52, Alexander Graf wrote:
A lot of people seem to also have code that doesn't make sense
upstream, for example implementing a one-off device th
On 2011-11-02 18:44, Fabien Chouteau wrote:
> On 31/10/2011 14:12, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> On 29 October 2011 14:52, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>> A lot of people seem to also have code that doesn't make sense
>>> upstream, for example implementing a one-off device that only
>>> really matters for the
On 31/10/2011 14:12, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 29 October 2011 14:52, Alexander Graf wrote:
>> A lot of people seem to also have code that doesn't make sense
>> upstream, for example implementing a one-off device that only
>> really matters for their own devboard which nobody else owns.
>> For suc
On 1/11/11 9:05 PM, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
Adding a
device is simply a matter of dropping a file into the tree and a line
into the Makefile and you are done. The device is available to be used
via -device. So the cost of maintaining stuff out-of-tree isn't that
big as you almost never have patch
On 11/01/2011 09:28 AM, Andreas Färber wrote:
Am 29.10.2011 15:52, schrieb Alexander Graf:
We should also show people unmaintained areas. The conclusion was a wiki page
with subsystems and status so people know what to expect.
We already have: http://wiki.qemu.org/Features
And in some places
Am 29.10.2011 15:52, schrieb Alexander Graf:
> We should also show people unmaintained areas. The conclusion was a wiki page
> with subsystems and status so people know what to expect.
We already have: http://wiki.qemu.org/Features
And in some places it used to defer from MAINTAINERS.
Andreas
Hi,
> If we get the qdev rework done then I think we're probably in
> a better position to have a plugin framework for devices. (There
> are some issues about API and ABI stability guarantees, of course.)
One of the qdev intended benefits is to have pretty much self-contained
device emulation.
On 31.10.2011, at 18:35, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 1 November 2011 00:08, Alexander Graf wrote:
>> On 31.10.2011, at 06:12, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>> On 29 October 2011 14:52, Alexander Graf wrote:
We should also show people unmaintained areas. The conclusion was a wiki
page with subs
On 1 November 2011 00:08, Alexander Graf wrote:
> On 31.10.2011, at 06:12, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> On 29 October 2011 14:52, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>> We should also show people unmaintained areas. The conclusion was a wiki
>>> page with subsystems and status so people know what to expect. Maybe
On 31.10.2011, at 06:12, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 29 October 2011 14:52, Alexander Graf wrote:
>> We should also show people unmaintained areas. The conclusion was a wiki
>> page with subsystems and status so people know what to expect. Maybe we
>> could generate this from the MAINTAINERS file
On 29 October 2011 14:52, Alexander Graf wrote:
> We should also show people unmaintained areas. The conclusion was a wiki
> page with subsystems and status so people know what to expect. Maybe we
> could generate this from the MAINTAINERS file?
Sounds like a good idea, although I think we might
Hi list,
During the GSoC mentor summit I held a small summit to find out what users of
QEMU think could be improved and how they perceive QEMU.
The main point brought up was that people felt ignored when sending patches.
From my experience, this usually happens when patches hit a maintainer fre
40 matches
Mail list logo
