[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] hpet problems with unaccelerated qemu
From: |
Serge E. Hallyn |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-devel] hpet problems with unaccelerated qemu |
Date: |
Tue, 10 Apr 2012 14:06:02 +0000 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) |
Quoting Jan Kiszka (address@hidden):
> On 2012-04-09 17:36, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > at https://bugs.launchpad.net/debian/+source/qemu-kvm/+bug/975240 there is
> > reported a problem in 1.0.0 with running unaccelerated qemu with hpet.
> > This is fixed upstream as of commit
> > ce967e2f33861b0e17753f97fa4527b5943c94b6.
> > However, that one seems very depending on many of the preceding ~thousand
> > commits.
> >
> > On irc mjt and iggy suggested that implicitly setting -no-hpet when tcg
> > is chosen should be fine. Right now that seems the best course, but
> > does anyone know how one would cleanly cherrypick that commit into 1.0?
> > Does anyone see a reason why -no-hpet with -no-kvm would cause anyone
> > trouble?
>
> Have you already tried to backport the complete set or dependent
> patches, ie. 5904ae4eba..ce967e2f33?
Yes, I did, starting with that range. But I kept finding more patches that
seemed to need to preceed it ( cf88a3bcc442d70e10d3969e1edfc8430d74172f,
(40c9dcbfd026f0d0dd73dcf5a189ead7d1ba2d0f,
48a18b3c698295e4d891f34e919615e84e20f027,
ad6d45fa0837acf3e8cab323ee5b08e05a9410a5). Perhaps the original set should
have been easy to port to 1.0, and I just didn't know what I was doing,
but there seemed to constantly be more previous changes needed.
thanks,
-serge