From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1L0zSp-0005Ld-DA
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2008 09:15:59 -0500
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1L0zSm-0005JX-3E
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2008 09:15:58 -0500
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=36310 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1L0zSl-0005JJ-Ax
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2008 09:15:55 -0500
Received: from mail.codesourcery.com ([65.74.133.4]:35181)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps
	(TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <paul@codesourcery.com>) id 1L0zSl-0004U7-Be
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2008 09:15:55 -0500
From: Paul Brook <paul@codesourcery.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Status on ARM host cpu
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 14:15:51 +0000
References: <gfjd36$85n$1@ger.gmane.org>
In-Reply-To: <gfjd36$85n$1@ger.gmane.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200811141415.51702.paul@codesourcery.com>
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: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
Cc: Steffen Liebergeld <usenet@gmx.eu>

On Friday 14 November 2008, Steffen Liebergeld wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am currently researching of whether or not it is feasible to port kqemu
> to the ARM platform. The website says qemu on ARM hosts is in
> "testing"-state. Does that still apply to the latest svn-Version?

Should just about work, though you should expect bugs.

However I advise using KVM and not kqemu. KVM has already been merged to 
upstream kernels, and the chances of getting another hypervisor interface 
merged are approximately zero.

Paul