|
From: | Rick Vernam |
Subject: | Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: Killing KQEMU |
Date: | Wed, 3 Jun 2009 16:46:37 -0500 |
User-agent: | KMail/1.11.3 (Linux/2.6.28.9; KDE/4.2.3; x86_64; ; ) |
On Wednesday 03 June 2009 4:34:49 pm Chris Frey wrote: > On Tue, Jun 02, 2009 at 09:30:42PM +0100, Paul Brook wrote: > > They're horrid hacks that I only reluctantly created in the first place. > > Limiting guest physical memory to 4G is a fairly serous issue. Requiring > > the user specify how much ram they require upfront will not be acceptable > > once we have machine config files. > > I see. Let me thank you then for adding those hacks. I'm a user > that truly appreciates it. > > > Sure, but this is actually part of my point. If noone cares enough to > > track+test the development branch, then it just proves how little anyone > > actually cares about kqemu. > > I do. I can't do it every day, but every so often I do a git fetch and > try it out. I can report that Fedora 10 hangs during boot using kqemu > 1.4.0pre1 and git 34aee2552fb5f4329d59a60f939656214b26d7f8 (0.10.4), > but that if I can coax it past the startup of services, it runs fine > after that. That coaxing is easier said than done, though, so I'm assuming > it is some kind of kqemu race. Unfortunately, I have no more data than > that, and not enough expertise yet to find out why. > > [1] Unsupportable == I'm not letting it anywhere near my production > > systems. When it breaks you keep both pieces, and it's unlikely anyone > > knows how to glue them back together again. > > That's understandable. But for a developer like me, kqemu sure saves a lot > of time when it works. > > - Chris |
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |