On 2011-03-03 09:48, Avi Kivity wrote: > On 03/02/2011 09:42 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: >> On Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 04:36:34PM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: >>> On Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 08:03:42PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote: >>> > On 2011-03-02 19:43, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: >>> > > On Tue, Mar 01, 2011 at 02:35:56PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote: >>> > >> On 02/28/2011 04:05 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >>> > >>> On 02/28/2011 01:13 PM, Avi Kivity wrote: >>> > >>>>> >>> > >>>> >>> > >>>> If there's a git tree of this I'll be happy to do an autotest run. >>> > >>> >>> > >>> Sure, it's branch iothread-win32 of git://github.com/bonzini/qemu.git >>> > >> >>> > >> Fails on Fedora 9 i386 install, hangs right after "Performing post >>> > >> install configuration...". The guest is processing interrupts but >>> > >> the mouse won't move, and it doesn't make progress. >>> > >> >>> > >> Configured with --enable-io-thread. Perhaps the problem exists even >>> > >> before the patchset. >>> > > >>> > > Probably unrelated, looks similar to the regression seen with qemu-kvm. >>> > > >>> > >>> > Do these patches change some behavior or not? >>> >>> Yes, they change some behaviour. Autotest fails. >> >> Sorry, i misunderstood. I don't think these patches change any >> behaviour. >> >> Avi's failure case is similar to what i've seen earlier upon >> qemu->qemu-kvm merge. Conclusion is there is no new regression >> introduced by these patches. >> > > Well that's strange, since qemu-kvm now passes autotest (and this was > qemu.git + patchset, not qemu-kvm). > Does it fail every time? Have you tested if qemu.git also fails without the patches? Then we may have a chance to bisect. Jan -- Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT T DE IT 1 Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
