From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1MPKMY-0001dt-61
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 10 Jul 2009 13:58:22 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1MPKMT-0001ZF-Fe
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 10 Jul 2009 13:58:21 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=58839 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MPKMT-0001Z3-8w
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 10 Jul 2009 13:58:17 -0400
Received: from qw-out-1920.google.com ([74.125.92.144]:54496)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <anthony@codemonkey.ws>) id 1MPKMS-0003TL-Sq
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 10 Jul 2009 13:58:17 -0400
Received: by qw-out-1920.google.com with SMTP id 5so335374qwc.4
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Fri, 10 Jul 2009 10:58:16 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4A578134.3020901@codemonkey.ws>
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 12:58:12 -0500
From: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Planning for the 0.11.0 release
References: <4A401A65.3080804@us.ibm.com> <4A5771C3.7050103@siemens.com>
	<4A577465.1050104@us.ibm.com>
	<200907101840.55859.paul@codesourcery.com>
In-Reply-To: <200907101840.55859.paul@codesourcery.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>, kvm-devel <kvm@vger.kernel.org>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>, Mark McLoughlin <markmc@redhat.com>

Paul Brook wrote:
>> Right, that part I'm okay with.  But the vCont based gdb model presumes
>> a unified address space which while usually true for kernel address
>> spaces, isn't universally true and certainly not true when PC is in
>> userspace.  That's what I understood to be the major objection to vCont.
>>     
>
> The thread bits are the wrong way to do things, but are probably relatively 
> harmless for now. Expect me to remove them at the first available opportunity.
>   

I'll queue 1-3 then and we'll leave 4 for post-0.11 debate.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori