Alexander Graf wrote:
On Jan 21, 2008, at 3:41 AM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
Mark Williamson wrote:
I think it would be great to maintain compatibility with the
binary-only
versions of the vm tools though.
But you're changing the semantics of the x86 instruction set. You
potentially break a
Mark Williamson wrote:
> > > I think it would be great to maintain compatibility with the binary-only
> > > versions of the vm tools though.
> >
> > But you're changing the semantics of the x86 instruction set. You
> > potentially break a real operating system. It also eliminates the
> > possibil
On Jan 21, 2008, at 3:41 AM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
Mark Williamson wrote:
I think it would be great to maintain compatibility with the
binary-only
versions of the vm tools though.
But you're changing the semantics of the x86 instruction set. You
potentially break a real operating system.
Mark Williamson wrote:
I think it would be great to maintain compatibility with the binary-only
versions of the vm tools though.
But you're changing the semantics of the x86 instruction set. You
potentially break a real operating system. It also eliminates the
possibility of nesting wit
> > I think it would be great to maintain compatibility with the binary-only
> > versions of the vm tools though.
>
> But you're changing the semantics of the x86 instruction set. You
> potentially break a real operating system. It also eliminates the
> possibility of nesting with something like
Alexander Graf wrote:
I think it would be great to maintain compatibility with the binary-only
versions of the vm tools though.
But you're changing the semantics of the x86 instruction set. You
potentially break a real operating system. It also eliminates the
possibility of nesting with
I think it would be great to maintain compatibility with the binary-only
versions of the vm tools though.
Regards,
Alex
- Ursprüngliche Nachricht -
Von: Anthony Liguori <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Gesendet: Sonntag, 20. Januar 2008 22:40
An: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
Betreff: Re: [Qemu-devel] VMpor
