[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] Powerpc regressions?

From: Rob Landley
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Powerpc regressions?
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 12:42:28 -0500
User-agent: KMail/1.11.2 (Linux/2.6.28-13-generic; KDE/4.2.2; x86_64; ; )

On Monday 13 July 2009 11:13:57 Paul Brook wrote:
> On Monday 13 July 2009, Rob Landley wrote:
> > On Monday 13 July 2009 07:25:45 Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > > This will probably will change again when we are able to get the CD-ROM
> > > working on the PowerMac IDE controller. The current emulated machine is
> > > a big hack and uses the fact that the Linux kernel supports different
> > > hardware than the Apple one. The goal is to emulate a machine as close
> > > as possible to the original hardware.
> >
> > Just confirming: juggling the hardware locations around randomly on any
> > given checkin is ok, so each system image we make is specific to a given
> > qemu version and only expected to run on that one unless we make a big
> > system with an initramfs that probes the hardware on each boot to find
> > its root filesystem?
> For things like macs emulation that are still under significant
> development, yes. If you want a stable machine then you first have to fix
> all the differences between qemu and the reference hardware we're
> attempting to emulate.

I take it http://www.qemu.org/status.html is the best stable vs unstable 
indicator for emulations?  So mips, m68k, arm, sparc, and the x86es are the 
only stable ones, and "testing" is still subject to change without notice?

> Paul

Latency is more important than throughput. It's that simple. - Linus Torvalds

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]