From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1K16uI-0002vZ-NJ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 27 May 2008 17:40:34 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1K16uH-0002sI-8f for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 27 May 2008 17:40:34 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=42597 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1K16uH-0002s7-4v for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 27 May 2008 17:40:33 -0400 Received: from fmmailgate03.web.de ([217.72.192.234]:45381) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1K16uG-0007GW-K9 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 27 May 2008 17:40:32 -0400 Received: from smtp08.web.de (fmsmtp08.dlan.cinetic.de [172.20.5.216]) by fmmailgate03.web.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04E04DCF3070 for ; Tue, 27 May 2008 23:40:31 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [88.64.31.238] (helo=[192.168.1.198]) by smtp08.web.de with asmtp (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (WEB.DE 4.109 #226) id 1K16uE-0007Om-00 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 27 May 2008 23:40:30 +0200 Message-ID: <483C7FC9.60105@web.de> Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 23:40:25 +0200 From: Jan Kiszka MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <483C3D55.2000508@siemens.com> <483C75DF.1050603@bellard.org> In-Reply-To: <483C75DF.1050603@bellard.org> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig24BB38016BD1D69BA377666C" Sender: jan.kiszka@web.de Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: KQEMU code organization Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig24BB38016BD1D69BA377666C Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Fabrice, Fabrice Bellard wrote: > Hi, >=20 > Regarding kqemu, I am still hesitating whether to commit it in the QEMU= > subversion repository. Moreover, I may change its license to another > open source one so I would prefer that the patches are assigned to my > copyright, especially if they are just small bugfixes. Hmm, that leaves an uncomfortable feeling on my side. If the licenses of the officially supported version did not include a GPL-compatible one, we would have to stick with what we have at the moment for Linux. Or will we see a dual licensed kqemu? >=20 > For your information, I will commit some incompatible API changes in > kqemu in the next few days, so a new version will be needed anyway. What is the roadmap of kqemu then? Are there functional enhancements planned, or further performance tunings? What are those? BTW, I think I understood my problem with kqemu in the meantime: lcall from ring 0 =3D> fails on lret as the real CS (with "wrong" RPL) is pushe= d onto the guest stack. Am I right? How to fix this best, by emulating lcall at kernel level? Thanks, Jan --------------enig24BB38016BD1D69BA377666C Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4-svn0 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFIPH/OniDOoMHTA+kRAnWtAJ4jfF0xVjQTlICYmDyimIVksi7eLQCfb2i2 hF9z5jNk0caRovezty86wYg= =c61p -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig24BB38016BD1D69BA377666C--