On 2011-03-15 04:38, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 08, 2011 at 06:21:07PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> On 2011-03-08 18:15, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>> On 03/08/2011 06:10 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> The qemu.git bit seen with my win32 patch series should also be a
> regression from qemu-k
On Tue, Mar 08, 2011 at 06:21:07PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2011-03-08 18:15, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > On 03/08/2011 06:10 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >>> The qemu.git bit seen with my win32 patch series should also be a
> >>> regression from qemu-kvm.git to qemu.git, no?
> >>
> >> Can't follow.
On 2011-03-08 18:40, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 03/08/2011 07:21 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> On 2011-03-08 18:15, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>> On 03/08/2011 06:10 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> The qemu.git bit seen with my win32 patch series should also be a
> regression from qemu-kvm.git to qemu.git,
On 03/08/2011 07:43 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>
> Something else - 27f368604a3d27ca4d.
I already thought so. But that is understood, fixed, and will be
obsoleted by the merge.
Ok, will look at your new stuff.
More interesting are open issues. Any news from that front?
None known.
--
error c
On 2011-03-08 18:41, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 03/08/2011 07:40 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
>> On 03/08/2011 07:21 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>> On 2011-03-08 18:15, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 03/08/2011 06:10 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> The qemu.git bit seen with my win32 patch series should also be a
>>
On 03/08/2011 07:40 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 03/08/2011 07:21 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-03-08 18:15, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 03/08/2011 06:10 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>> The qemu.git bit seen with my win32 patch series should also be a
>>> regression from qemu-kvm.git to qemu.git, no?
>
On 03/08/2011 07:21 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-03-08 18:15, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 03/08/2011 06:10 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>> The qemu.git bit seen with my win32 patch series should also be a
>>> regression from qemu-kvm.git to qemu.git, no?
>>
>> Can't follow. What do you mean?
>
>
On 2011-03-08 18:15, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 03/08/2011 06:10 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>> The qemu.git bit seen with my win32 patch series should also be a
>>> regression from qemu-kvm.git to qemu.git, no?
>>
>> Can't follow. What do you mean?
>
> I didn't understand very well Avi and Marcelo's
On 03/08/2011 06:10 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> The qemu.git bit seen with my win32 patch series should also be a
> regression from qemu-kvm.git to qemu.git, no?
Can't follow. What do you mean?
I didn't understand very well Avi and Marcelo's exchange, but this test
definitely 1) fails with qemu
On 2011-03-08 17:58, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 03/08/2011 05:51 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
iothread merge?
- progressing slowly, marcelo working on it
- have found regressions (signal handling code) (ifdef'd away for now)
>> The regressions will automagically go away (to be replaced wi
On 03/08/2011 05:51 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> iothread merge?
> - progressing slowly, marcelo working on it
> - have found regressions (signal handling code) (ifdef'd away for now)
The regressions will automagically go away (to be replaced with others
then...) when the switch of qemu-kvm to ups
On 2011-03-08 16:50, Chris Wright wrote:
> iothread merge?
> - progressing slowly, marcelo working on it
> - have found regressions (signal handling code) (ifdef'd away for now)
The regressions will automagically go away (to be replaced with others
then...) when the switch of qemu-kvm to upstream
12 matches
Mail list logo
