From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1DUswL-0004tx-5l
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 08 May 2005 17:03:53 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1DUswF-0004rd-7b
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 08 May 2005 17:03:47 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DUswF-0004qa-4a
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 08 May 2005 17:03:47 -0400
Received: from [64.233.162.203] (helo=zproxy.gmail.com)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1DUszL-0006BF-GG
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 08 May 2005 17:06:59 -0400
Received: by zproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id 8so1208564nzo
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Sun, 08 May 2005 14:00:57 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <2ad73a05050814006a0cac2e@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 8 May 2005 18:00:57 -0300
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Andr=E9_Braga?= <meianoite@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Kqemu charged?
In-Reply-To: <200505081536.56882.collinm@laboiteaprog.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <200505081536.56882.collinm@laboiteaprog.com>
Reply-To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Andr=E9_Braga?= <meianoite@gmail.com>,
	qemu-devel@nongnu.org
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

Unless you have 2 instances of QEMU running, no, you're not supposed to.

2005/5/8, Marc Collin <collinm@laboiteaprog.com>:
> hi
>=20
> i do:
> modprobe kqemu
>=20
> with  /sbin/lsmod | grep kqemu
> kqemu                  43272  0
>=20
> does kqemu run corretely?
> l'm not suppose to get 2?
>=20
> thanks
>