Re: Test result for KVM, kernel 62d1ea7.. , userspace 667f2deff8..

[Avi Kivity <avi-atKUWr5tajBWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org>]

Laurent Vivier wrote:
> Avi Kivity wrote:
>   
>> Farkas Levente wrote:
>>     
>>> hi,
>>> it seems we've got a real tester:-) for ma all of the bellow are serious
>>> bugs (tomorrow i'll try to send more detail of our host crash too) and
>>> imho the latest 'stable' version was kvm-36. wouldn't be better to
>>> postpone all patches and infrastructure changes (virtio and others)
>>> until these have been fixed and try to produce a new 'stable' release?
>>> i understand then everybody (including myself) would like to see these
>>> new features in the latest and greatest kvm release, but at the same
>>> time i'd be nice to think about the end users too.
>>> may some version cane be labeled as stable (eg 36) and the latest as
>>> devel. this can help a lot for those who are not read this list.
>>>   
>>>       
>> You can use -no-kvm-irqchip to get stability similar to kvm-36.
>>
>>     
>
> Perhaps a workaround for end user could be to disable by default kvm irqchip and
> add an option to enable it (--use-kvm-irqchip) ?
>
>   

I thought of it, but that would mean we wouldn't see the problems, so 
they wouldn't get fixed.



-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/