From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:49666) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Qoc3B-00032i-Kg for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 03 Aug 2011 10:03:58 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Qoc38-0005tW-SK for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 03 Aug 2011 10:03:57 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:63831) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Qoc38-0005tO-Gb for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 03 Aug 2011 10:03:54 -0400 Message-ID: <4E395536.80307@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2011 17:03:34 +0300 From: Avi Kivity MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <87ochmmhma.fsf@nemi.mork.no> <87sjqi9jsx.fsf@nemi.mork.no> <20110707235009.GB12991@morn.localdomain> <87fwmh9puv.fsf@nemi.mork.no> <20110710204100.GA25495@morn.localdomain> <0895461378D74EC49BD787BDBFF8C934@FSCPC> <8739hlb5t4.fsf@nemi.mork.no> <20110802003637.GA3046@morn.localdomain> <87y5zc9mzu.fsf@nemi.mork.no> <20110802124114.GA29924@morn.localdomain> <87pqkm7jko.fsf@nemi.mork.no> <4E394DAF.8030700@redhat.com> <87hb5y7gix.fsf@nemi.mork.no> In-Reply-To: <87hb5y7gix.fsf@nemi.mork.no> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [SeaBIOS] SeaBIOS error with Juniper FreeBSD kernel List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: =?UTF-8?B?QmrDuHJuIE1vcms=?= Cc: Brandon Bennett , Kevin O'Connor , seabios@seabios.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Sebastian Herbszt On 08/03/2011 04:48 PM, Bj=C3=B8rn Mork wrote: > > > > Is fixing JUNOS out of the question? > > Yes, I would say so. The ability to run it on non-Juniper hardware is > undocumented and unsupported to the degree that the functionality > probably rather would be removed than fixed to support something like > SeaBIOS. > > > AFAICT, Seabios complies with all relevant standards. > > Yes, I have no reason to believe otherwise. But still it does behave > sufficiently different from other BIOSes for low CPU count machines to > fail in this particular case. > > I see this as another end of the discussion about whether Linux should > try to configure PC hardware in the same manner as Windows, as that is > the configuration which will be tested by hardware vendors. Most OS > vendors will test their systems with the big proprietary BIOSes and not > with SeaBIOS. > > Does that make sense? It does, I wasn't sure if you're working on behalf of Juniper or not. I guess the options are: - build time switch - run time switch, controlled by qemu via fwcfg - run time decision based on size - do nothing --=20 error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function