BALATON Zoltan writes:
> On Tue, 13 May 2025, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> Mark Cave-Ayland writes:
>>> On a related note this also brings us back to the discussion as to the
>>> relationship between qdev and QOM: at one point I was under the impression
>>> that qdev properties were simply QOM
BALATON Zoltan writes:
> On Tue, 13 May 2025, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> Mark Cave-Ayland writes:
>>> On a related note this also brings us back to the discussion as to the
>>> relationship between qdev and QOM: at one point I was under the impression
>>> that qdev properties were simply QOM
Daniel P. Berrangé writes:
> On Tue, May 13, 2025 at 11:26:31AM +0200, BALATON Zoltan wrote:
>> On Tue, 13 May 2025, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> > Mark Cave-Ayland writes:
>> > > On a related note this also brings us back to the discussion as to
>> > > the relationship between qdev and QOM: at o
On Tue, May 13, 2025 at 11:26:31AM +0200, BALATON Zoltan wrote:
> On Tue, 13 May 2025, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> > Mark Cave-Ayland writes:
> > > On a related note this also brings us back to the discussion as to
> > > the relationship between qdev and QOM: at one point I was under the
> > > impr
On Tue, 13 May 2025, Markus Armbruster wrote:
Mark Cave-Ayland writes:
On a related note this also brings us back to the discussion as to the
relationship between qdev and QOM: at one point I was under the
impression that qdev properties were simply QOM properties that were
exposed externally
On 12/05/2025 16.41, BALATON Zoltan wrote:
On Mon, 12 May 2025, Xiaoyao Li wrote:
...
We need something in code to restrict the *internal* property really
internal, i.e., not user settable. What the name of the property is
doesn't matter.
What's an internal property? Properties are there to
Mark Cave-Ayland writes:
> On a related note this also brings us back to the discussion as to the
> relationship between qdev and QOM: at one point I was under the impression
> that qdev properties were simply QOM properties that were exposed externally,
> i.e on the commmand line for use with
Igor Mammedov writes:
> On Mon, 12 May 2025 12:54:26 +0200
> Markus Armbruster wrote:
>
>> Daniel P. Berrangé writes:
>>
>> > On Mon, May 12, 2025 at 09:46:30AM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 9 May 2025 at 11:04, Thomas Huth wrote:
>> >> > Thanks for your clarifications, Zhao!
On Mon, 12 May 2025 12:54:26 +0200
Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Daniel P. Berrangé writes:
>
> > On Mon, May 12, 2025 at 09:46:30AM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> >> On Fri, 9 May 2025 at 11:04, Thomas Huth wrote:
> >> > Thanks for your clarifications, Zhao! But I think this shows again the
>
On 12/05/2025 11:54, Markus Armbruster wrote:
Daniel P. Berrangé writes:
On Mon, May 12, 2025 at 09:46:30AM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
On Fri, 9 May 2025 at 11:04, Thomas Huth wrote:
Thanks for your clarifications, Zhao! But I think this shows again the
problem that we have hit a couple o
On Mon, 12 May 2025, Xiaoyao Li wrote:
On 5/12/2025 6:54 PM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
Daniel P. Berrangé writes:
On Mon, May 12, 2025 at 09:46:30AM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
On Fri, 9 May 2025 at 11:04, Thomas Huth wrote:
Thanks for your clarifications, Zhao! But I think this shows again th
On 5/12/2025 6:54 PM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
Daniel P. Berrangé writes:
On Mon, May 12, 2025 at 09:46:30AM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
On Fri, 9 May 2025 at 11:04, Thomas Huth wrote:
Thanks for your clarifications, Zhao! But I think this shows again the
problem that we have hit a couple of
Daniel P. Berrangé writes:
> On Mon, May 12, 2025 at 09:46:30AM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> On Fri, 9 May 2025 at 11:04, Thomas Huth wrote:
>> > Thanks for your clarifications, Zhao! But I think this shows again the
>> > problem that we have hit a couple of times in the past already: Properti
On Mon, May 12, 2025 at 09:46:30AM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On Fri, 9 May 2025 at 11:04, Thomas Huth wrote:
> > Thanks for your clarifications, Zhao! But I think this shows again the
> > problem that we have hit a couple of times in the past already: Properties
> > are currently used for both
On Fri, 9 May 2025 at 11:04, Thomas Huth wrote:
> Thanks for your clarifications, Zhao! But I think this shows again the
> problem that we have hit a couple of times in the past already: Properties
> are currently used for both, config knobs for the users and internal
> switches for configuration
Thomas Huth writes:
> On 09/05/2025 09.32, Zhao Liu wrote:
>> On Fri, May 09, 2025 at 02:49:27PM +0800, Xiaoyao Li wrote:
>>> Date: Fri, 9 May 2025 14:49:27 +0800
>>> From: Xiaoyao Li
>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 12/27] target/i386/cpu: Remove
>>> CPUX86State::enable_cpuid_0xb field
>>>
>>> On 5
On Fri, May 09, 2025 at 12:04:19PM +0200, Thomas Huth wrote:
> Date: Fri, 9 May 2025 12:04:19 +0200
> From: Thomas Huth
> Subject: How to mark internal properties (was: Re: [PATCH v4 12/27]
> target/i386/cpu: Remove CPUX86State::enable_cpuid_0xb field)
>
> On 09/05/2025 09.
On 09/05/2025 09.32, Zhao Liu wrote:
On Fri, May 09, 2025 at 02:49:27PM +0800, Xiaoyao Li wrote:
Date: Fri, 9 May 2025 14:49:27 +0800
From: Xiaoyao Li
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 12/27] target/i386/cpu: Remove
CPUX86State::enable_cpuid_0xb field
On 5/8/2025 9:35 PM, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
18 matches
Mail list logo
