On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 10:38:02PM -0500, Kevin O'Connor wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 12:02:59PM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> > We really need to update SeaBIOS whenever there is a bug that we
> > know requires an update. Things breakdown because of one or more of
> > the following reasons:
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 12:02:59PM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> We really need to update SeaBIOS whenever there is a bug that we
> know requires an update. Things breakdown because of one or more of
> the following reasons:
>
> 1) User submits a patch to seabios@, Kevin applies it. But that
>
On 12/19/2011 01:40 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 07:16:02PM +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 07:04:54PM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 12:02:59PM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
I would like to point out that August -> O
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 07:40:05PM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> In reply to Anthony: the reason Fedora does this is because
> binary blobs aren't permitted, no matter what the origin. We
> have to build SeaBIOS from source, and the choice is made to
> build from the upstream SeaBIOS source,
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 07:16:02PM +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 07:04:54PM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 12:02:59PM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> > > I would like to point out that August -> October is a pretty long
> > > time period fo
On 12/19/2011 01:19 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 12:02:59PM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
I would like to point out that August -> October is a pretty long
time period for a regression like this to exist. I think that
really indicates that the primary problem is testin
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 12:02:59PM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 12/19/2011 11:43 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> >I hadn't raised it again, because I had mistakenly assumed QEMU
> >will automatically pull in the newer SeaBios release before 1.0
> >came out. I could have more aggresively bugge
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 07:04:54PM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 12:02:59PM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> > I would like to point out that August -> October is a pretty long
> > time period for a regression like this to exist. I think that
> > really indicates that t
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 12:02:59PM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> I would like to point out that August -> October is a pretty long
> time period for a regression like this to exist. I think that
> really indicates that the primary problem is testing, not frequency
> of SeaBIOS updates.
Fair poi
On 12/19/2011 11:43 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 11:34:13AM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 12/19/2011 04:31 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
Sigh, we really need to be better about updating SeaBIOS in QEMU before
release. We had plenty of time to pull in a newer SeaBIOS
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 11:34:13AM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 12/19/2011 04:31 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> >On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 11:49:56AM -0500, Kevin O'Connor wrote:
> >>On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 10:24:07AM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> >>>On 12/17/2011 09:25 AM, Richard W.M. Jone
On 12/19/2011 04:31 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 11:49:56AM -0500, Kevin O'Connor wrote:
On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 10:24:07AM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 12/17/2011 09:25 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 09:22:45AM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 11:49:56AM -0500, Kevin O'Connor wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 10:24:07AM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> > On 12/17/2011 09:25 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > >On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 09:22:45AM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> > >>I've even further narrowed it down to
On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 11:49:56AM -0500, Kevin O'Connor wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 10:24:07AM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> > On 12/17/2011 09:25 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > >On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 09:22:45AM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> > >>I've even further narrowed it down to
On 12/17/2011 10:49 AM, Kevin O'Connor wrote:
On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 10:24:07AM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 12/17/2011 09:25 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 09:22:45AM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
I've even further narrowed it down to the presents or lack of '-vga
On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 10:24:07AM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 12/17/2011 09:25 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> >On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 09:22:45AM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> >>I've even further narrowed it down to the presents or lack of '-vga
> >>cirrus'. If you add '-vga cirrus' to
On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 10:24:07AM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 12/17/2011 09:25 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> >On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 09:22:45AM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> >>I've even further narrowed it down to the presents or lack of '-vga
> >>cirrus'. If you add '-vga cirrus' to
On 12/17/2011 09:25 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 09:22:45AM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
I've even further narrowed it down to the presents or lack of '-vga
cirrus'. If you add '-vga cirrus' to the above command line, the
guest will boot successfully.
Confirmed: Addi
On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 09:22:45AM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> I've even further narrowed it down to the presents or lack of '-vga
> cirrus'. If you add '-vga cirrus' to the above command line, the
> guest will boot successfully.
Confirmed: Adding -vga cirrus to the command line cures it too.
On 12/17/2011 09:13 AM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 12/17/2011 02:33 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 07:44:10PM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 12/16/2011 06:53 PM, Max Filippov wrote:
git bisect says this. I didn't believe it first time, so I ran it
twice with a few modif
On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 09:13:52AM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> Okay, I can reproduce this now with a F15 guest.
>
> I've narrowed it down to '-nodefaults -serial stdio'. Can you
> confirm that if you remove those options it works for you?
Confirmed: removing those options allows it to boot n
On 12/17/2011 02:33 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 07:44:10PM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 12/16/2011 06:53 PM, Max Filippov wrote:
git bisect says this. I didn't believe it first time, so I ran it
twice with a few modifications, and it pointed to the same commit bot
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 07:44:10PM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> Fairly certain this bisect is a red herring.
>
> tglx reported this the other day in IRC. He narrowed it down to
> virtio-serial. He was able to reproduce it both with kvm tools and
> QEMU.
I looked at this a bit more closely, a
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 07:44:10PM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 12/16/2011 06:53 PM, Max Filippov wrote:
> >>>git bisect says this. I didn't believe it first time, so I ran it
> >>>twice with a few modifications, and it pointed to the same commit both
> >>>times ...
> >>
> >>Richard,
> >>cou
On 12/16/2011 06:53 PM, Max Filippov wrote:
git bisect says this. I didn't believe it first time, so I ran it
twice with a few modifications, and it pointed to the same commit both
times ...
Richard,
could you please elaborate on your testcase and configuration
(host/target architecture, comma
On 12/16/2011 06:07 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
git bisect says this. I didn't believe it first time, so I ran it
twice with a few modifications, and it pointed to the same commit both
times ...
67882fd177389527510eb36b3f7712011a835545 is the first bad commit
commit 67882fd177389527510eb36b3
On 12/16/2011 06:07 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
git bisect says this. I didn't believe it first time, so I ran it
twice with a few modifications, and it pointed to the same commit both
times ...
Need more details because it doesn't appear to be broken to me.
What guest, what's your command
>> git bisect says this. I didn't believe it first time, so I ran it
>> twice with a few modifications, and it pointed to the same commit both
>> times ...
>
> Richard,
> could you please elaborate on your testcase and configuration
> (host/target architecture, command lines, etc).
Ok, I've found
> git bisect says this. I didn't believe it first time, so I ran it
> twice with a few modifications, and it pointed to the same commit both
> times ...
Richard,
could you please elaborate on your testcase and configuration
(host/target architecture, command lines, etc).
> 67882fd177389527510eb3
git bisect says this. I didn't believe it first time, so I ran it
twice with a few modifications, and it pointed to the same commit both
times ...
67882fd177389527510eb36b3f7712011a835545 is the first bad commit
commit 67882fd177389527510eb36b3f7712011a835545
Author: Max Filippov
Date: Tue Se
30 matches
Mail list logo
