From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HUXEy-0005UH-5V
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 20:02:44 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HUXEw-0005U0-NL
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 20:02:43 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HUXEw-0005Tx-Kf
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 19:02:42 -0500
Received: from mtaout03-winn.ispmail.ntl.com ([81.103.221.49])
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <jseward@acm.org>) id 1HUXD5-00075f-Lw
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 20:00:48 -0400
From: Julian Seward <jseward@acm.org>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] RFC: This project needs a stable branch
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 23:57:54 +0000
References: <200703151111.04453.jseward@acm.org>
	<200703221923.09691.rob@landley.net>
	<200703222327.47558.paul@codesourcery.com>
In-Reply-To: <200703222327.47558.paul@codesourcery.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200703222357.55469.jseward@acm.org>
Reply-To: 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: Paul Brook <paul@codesourcery.com>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On Thursday 22 March 2007 23:27, Paul Brook wrote:
> > Do you mean you're asking me to break up Paul Brook's QOPS tree at
> > https://nowt.dyndns.org and submit it to mainline?  I can do this thing,
> > if you really think it would help.
>
> If you implement all the missing bits in the process it'll help ;-)

What bits would they be then?

FWIW, I snarfed the patch last Sunday and tested it on amd64 host / 
x86 guest, and successfully booted a couple of linux distros.  So it's
not obviously broken, at least for my mundane host/guest choice.
It also seemed marginally slower on a big compile in the guest - 
395.4 host cpu seconds for mainline vs 422.9 with qops.  Is this 
expected?

J