From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1L0vH0-0005WF-V4
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2008 04:47:30 -0500
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1L0vGv-0005UJ-U2
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2008 04:47:30 -0500
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=55239 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1L0vGv-0005UD-OP
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2008 04:47:25 -0500
Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:43026)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <gleb@redhat.com>) id 1L0vGv-00018B-8k
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2008 04:47:25 -0500
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 11:47:27 +0200
From: Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] RE: [Bochs-developers] [PATCH v3 1/6] Move PIC
	initialization out ofline to save space in post code area.
Message-ID: <20081114094727.GA6059@redhat.com>
References: <20081110091134.11822.34230.stgit@dhcp-1-237.local>
	<20081110091139.11822.11686.stgit@dhcp-1-237.local>
	<7D8EE33FCAD549D69512E10A103EDA15@FSCPC>
	<004d01c945c4$2a561180$7f023480$@com>
	<491C876D.3010003@codemonkey.ws>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <491C876D.3010003@codemonkey.ws>
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: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, 'Sebastian Herbszt' <herbszt@gmx.de>

On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 02:00:45PM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> What's the status of this patch series?  Are there particular patches  
> that haven't made it into upstream Bochs yet that requiring refactoring?  
Most of them are not yet upstream, but as far as I know there are no
outstanding issues that need to be addressed.

> Are there things that we should take in the bios.diff?  Until the Bochs 
> folks get around to applying?
I think Sebastian wants to check the patches with Bochs, but Bochs had a
bug that prevented him from doing it. The bug should have been fixed
today, so lets wait a little bit more for Bochs merge. Sebastian is this
description accurate?

--
			Gleb.