From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Mft4R-0007E0-Kt for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 25 Aug 2009 06:16:07 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Mft4N-0007Do-TV for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 25 Aug 2009 06:16:07 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=45092 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Mft4N-0007Dl-MZ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 25 Aug 2009 06:16:03 -0400 Received: from mail-bw0-f227.google.com ([209.85.218.227]:41608) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Mft4N-0008P7-84 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 25 Aug 2009 06:16:03 -0400 Received: by bwz27 with SMTP id 27so2236073bwz.34 for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2009 03:16:02 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <4A93AFF9.1060201@web.de> References: <48A297F0.9000700@web.de> <48A8574B.6010704@web.de> <4A938B26.5040609@web.de> <52d4a3890908250124g74e25441x262fc7926bfdbe36@mail.gmail.com> <4A93A7EC.6090704@web.de> <52d4a3890908250209y76ecaf1tf68117635a03820d@mail.gmail.com> <4A93AFF9.1060201@web.de> Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 13:16:01 +0300 Message-ID: <52d4a3890908250316l4de68725xa9d780e7d5b37205@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: Breakage with local APIC routing From: Mohammed Gamal Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Jan Kiszka Cc: Avi Kivity , qemu-devel@nongnu.org On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 12:33 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote: > Mohammed Gamal wrote: >> qemu-system-x86_64 -hda /dev/null -cdrom >> > > I only have kubuntu-9.04-alternate-amd64.iso at hand ATM, and with that > image I'm unable to reproduce. Will download and check standard ubuntu > later today. > >> I was using qemu-kvm, but I assume that using -no-kvm would be >> equivalent to using plain qemu, no? > > Generally yes, but not necessarily (e.g. the BIOSes are different). So > it's better to check such issues also against "clean" qemu, specifically > as we are on qemu-devel here. > > Jan > > Just tested this now on a vanilla qemu, I am still able to reproduce the same issue.