On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 4:41 PM, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> Thanks, Stefan. That patch actually doesn't compile for me, because
> it leaves references in hw/pckbd.c to both ioport92_write and
> ioport92_read, which it deletes from there. Should ioport92_read
> just be renamed to outport_read instea
Thanks, Stefan. That patch actually doesn't compile for me, because
it leaves references in hw/pckbd.c to both ioport92_write and
ioport92_read, which it deletes from there. Should ioport92_read
just be renamed to outport_read instead of delted, and the remaining
references changed to {input,outp
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 5:01 PM, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> I don't see this patch in the git tree, nor a revert of the buggy
> commit. Was any decision made on this?
Blue Swirl posted a patch a few days ago:
[PATCH] pc: move port 92 stuff back to pc.c from pckbd.c
It hasn't been merged yet but I
Hi,
I don't see this patch in the git tree, nor a revert of the buggy
commit. Was any decision made on this?
thanks,
-serge
On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 3:47 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 25, 2010 at 7:02 PM, Peter Lieven wrote:
>> this was the outcome of my bisect session:
>>
>> 956a3e6bb7386de48b642d4fee11f7f86a2fcf9a is first bad commit
>> commit 956a3e6bb7386de48b642d4fee11f7f86a2fcf9a
>> Author: Blue Swirl
On 27.12.2010 04:51, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Sun, Dec 26, 2010 at 9:21 PM, Peter Lieven wrote:
Am 25.12.2010 um 20:02 schrieb Peter Lieven:
Am 23.12.2010 um 03:42 schrieb Stefan Hajnoczi:
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 10:02 AM, Peter Lieven wrote:
If I start a VM with the following parameter
Am 27.12.2010 um 04:51 schrieb Stefan Hajnoczi:
> On Sun, Dec 26, 2010 at 9:21 PM, Peter Lieven wrote:
>>
>> Am 25.12.2010 um 20:02 schrieb Peter Lieven:
>>
>>>
>>> Am 23.12.2010 um 03:42 schrieb Stefan Hajnoczi:
>>>
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 10:02 AM, Peter Lieven wrote:
> If I star
On Sun, Dec 26, 2010 at 9:21 PM, Peter Lieven wrote:
>
> Am 25.12.2010 um 20:02 schrieb Peter Lieven:
>
>>
>> Am 23.12.2010 um 03:42 schrieb Stefan Hajnoczi:
>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 10:02 AM, Peter Lieven wrote:
If I start a VM with the following parameters
qemu-kvm-0.13.0 -m 204
On Sat, Dec 25, 2010 at 7:02 PM, Peter Lieven wrote:
> this was the outcome of my bisect session:
>
> 956a3e6bb7386de48b642d4fee11f7f86a2fcf9a is first bad commit
> commit 956a3e6bb7386de48b642d4fee11f7f86a2fcf9a
> Author: Blue Swirl
> Date: Sat May 22 07:59:01 2010 +
>
> Compile pckbd o
Am 25.12.2010 um 20:02 schrieb Peter Lieven:
>
> Am 23.12.2010 um 03:42 schrieb Stefan Hajnoczi:
>
>> On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 10:02 AM, Peter Lieven wrote:
>>> If I start a VM with the following parameters
>>> qemu-kvm-0.13.0 -m 2048 -smp 2 -monitor tcp:0:4014,server,nowait -vnc :14
>>> -name
Am 23.12.2010 um 03:42 schrieb Stefan Hajnoczi:
> On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 10:02 AM, Peter Lieven wrote:
>> If I start a VM with the following parameters
>> qemu-kvm-0.13.0 -m 2048 -smp 2 -monitor tcp:0:4014,server,nowait -vnc :14
>> -name 'ubuntu.test' -boot order=dc,menu=off -cdrom
>> ubunt
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 10:02 AM, Peter Lieven wrote:
> If I start a VM with the following parameters
> qemu-kvm-0.13.0 -m 2048 -smp 2 -monitor tcp:0:4014,server,nowait -vnc :14
> -name 'ubuntu.test' -boot order=dc,menu=off -cdrom
> ubuntu-10.04.1-desktop-amd64.iso -k de
>
> and select memtest
Hi,
I came across a strange issue when updating from qemu-kvm 0.12.5 to
qemu-kvm-0.13.0
If I start a VM with the following parameters
qemu-kvm-0.13.0 -m 2048 -smp 2 -monitor tcp:0:4014,server,nowait -vnc :14 -name
'ubuntu.test' -boot order=dc,menu=off -cdrom ubuntu-10.04.1-desktop-amd64.iso
13 matches
Mail list logo
