From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.24) id 1Ae43O-0003Tr-E9 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 06 Jan 2004 22:08:18 -0500 Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.24) id 1Ae421-0002cM-5z for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 06 Jan 2004 22:07:24 -0500 Received: from [66.70.73.150] (helo=lists.samba.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1Ae3wL-0000Du-Dt for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 06 Jan 2004 22:01:01 -0500 From: Rusty Russell Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] qemu on 2.6.0-rc1 In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 06 Jan 2004 22:48:54 BST." <3FFB2D46.90002@free.fr> Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 12:53:40 +1100 Sender: rusty@bach.samba.org Message-Id: <20040107015929.BBFF22C21D@lists.samba.org> Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org In message <3FFB2D46.90002@free.fr> you write: > It seems I need to update the documentation :-) > > Did you try to submit the non QEMU specific patches to Linus ? I think > it is dangerous to leave harcoded constants in somes parts of the kernel. I'll see if Andrew takes the whole thing first. If not, I'll submit the "cleanup" part by itself. I'd really like the whole thing. > BTW, in the current CVS, qemu-fast is about 2.3 times faster as the > previous version (still 9 times slower than native on a P2 500 MHz on a > typical 'gcc -pipe' compilation task which involves a lot of task > switches). 0.5.1 feels about 10x slower booting the kernel (didn't measure, but it's that order of mag). Under 3 would really sway me... > and SMP is getting closer now with my last changes. Any idea when it'll be testable? And do you prefer cash or check? Rusty. -- Anyone who quotes me in their sig is an idiot. -- Rusty Russell.