similar to: convert physical windows 8 machine to virtual machine

> > The virt-p2v project is your friend; http://libguestfs.org/virt-v2v/ Yes, it seems so. I came across some readings about this tool. > > Be aware that you CANNOT have a windows partition that does both > bare-metal booting and virtual booting without risking having to > re-register your machine at practically every boot Hum hum, that's what I am trying to do. I found

On 05/15/2014 03:34 AM, arnaud gaboury wrote: > I dual boot w8 and Arch Linux. Both are on the same ssd drive (each OS > have of course a partition). > Now I would like to virtualize w8 and run it inside Arch Linux using > KVM/QEMU and Libvirt. > w8 has already been installed on a ntfs partition. As it is brand new, > it will not be difficult to reinstall it on a image.raw The

I plan to dual boot w8 and Archlinux, and virtualize the same w8 machine with libvirt qemu/kvm. I already did the dual boot. I am now starting the virtualization. My plan was to use the w8 partition as a Disk volume pool [1]. Unfortunately, I didn't noticed only FAT32 was a valid format when I installed w8 on NTFS. I need to change my whole setup, but beforethat, I want to be sure libvirt

On 05/15/2014 06:31 AM, arnaud gaboury wrote: >> >> The virt-p2v project is your friend; http://libguestfs.org/virt-v2v/ > > Yes, it seems so. I came across some readings about this tool. >> >> Be aware that you CANNOT have a windows partition that does both >> bare-metal booting and virtual booting without risking having to >> re-register your machine at

Patch applied. ------- ==> Creating package "libguestfs-git"... -> Generating .PKGINFO file... -> Generating .MTREE file... -> Compressing package... ==> Leaving fakeroot environment. ==> Finished making: libguestfs-git 1.27.25.12.gbbae613-1 (Mon Aug 11 18:24:54 CEST 2014) ---------------------- martinus@gerbillous ➤➤ ~aur/libguestfs-git % ls -al

As a regular user, member of the libvirt group, I run this command to create a basic VM: virt-install --connect qemu:///system --name=test --ram 2048 --cpu host-model-only --os-variant=win7 --disk /myVM/test --boot cdrom,hd --virt-type kvm --graphics spice --controller scsi,model=virtio-scsi --cdrom=/drawer/myIso/w8.iso It returns an error : --------------------------------- Starting install...

I think one - maybe final? - problem. How can I tell the difference between drivers for "client" versions of Windows (eg. Windows 7) and server versions of Windows (eg. Windows 2008 Server)? It seems in many or most cases the drivers are identical, eg: $ md5sum viostor/2k12/amd64/* viostor/w8/amd64/* bbe250c13bf891fd7292ccab9908a63a viostor/2k12/amd64/viostor.cat

+Li Jin ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Vadim Rozenfeld" <vrozenfe@redhat.com> > To: "Richard W.M. Jones" <rjones@redhat.com> > Cc: "Roman Kagan" <rkagan@virtuozzo.com>, libguestfs@redhat.com, "Amnon Ilan" <ailan@redhat.com>, "Jeff Nelson" > <jenelson@redhat.com>, "Yan Vugenfirer"

AArch64AddressTypePromotion.cpp does a fair bit of work to help make these things work out well. It could probably be generalized for non-AArch64 targets as per the comment in the file header. > On Jun 26, 2014, at 10:42 AM, Sanjay Patel <spatel at rotateright.com> wrote: > > Cool HW trick. :) > Are those 'sxtw' ops free? > That’ll depend on the details of the

Ping From: Mandeep Singh Grang [mailto:mgrang at codeaurora.org] Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2015 4:34 PM To: 'llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu' Cc: 'ghoflehner at apple.com'; 'apazos at codeaurora.org'; mgrang at codeaurora.org Subject: Question on Machine Combiner Pass Hi, In the file lib/CodeGen/MachineCombiner.cpp I see that in the function

I am using this command to install a w8 guest on my Archlinux host: virt-install --connect qemu:///system --name=tintinVM --ram 4096 --cpu host-model-only --os-variant=win7 --disk /dev/vg0/tintin,size=120,bus=virtio,sparse=false,format=raw --name="tintinVM" --network bridge=virbr0,model=virtio --graphics spice --cdrom /dev/cdrom The virtual machine window open and show the blue windows

Hello, For a very simple loop where all IV users are post-inc users, I observed redundant add instructions in AArch64. From LSR debug, I can see initial formula for icmp is the one that transformed to a post-inc form in OptimizeLoopTermCond() and later expanded in post-inc mode. Based on the observation that the icmp is already a post-inc user, I hacked LSR to prevent the icmp from being

All, If we can speculatively execute a load instruction, why isn’t it safe to hoist it out by promoting it to a scalar in LICM pass? There is a comment in LICM pass that if a load/store is conditional then it is not safe because it would break the LLVM concurrency model (See commit 73bfa4a). It has an IR test for checking this in test/Transforms/LICM/scalar-promote-memmodel.ll However, I have

Currently the AtomicExpandPass will lower the following IR: define i1 @foo(i32* %obj, i32 %old, i32 %new) { entry: %v0 = cmpxchg weak volatile i32* %obj, i32 %old, i32 %new _*release acquire*_ %v1 = extractvalue { i32, i1 } %v0, 1 ret i1 %v1 } to the equivalent of the following on AArch64: _*ldxr w8, [x0]*_ cmp w8, w1 b.ne .LBB0_3 // BB#1:

> On May 27, 2016, at 2:50 PM, via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hello, > > For a very simple loop where all IV users are post-inc users, I observed redundant add instructions in AArch64. > > From LSR debug, I can see initial formula for icmp is the one that transformed to a post-inc form in OptimizeLoopTermCond() and later expanded in post-inc

I think gcc is right. It inserted a branch for n == 0 (the cbz at the top), so that's not a problem. In all other regards, this is safe: if you examine the sequence of loads and stores, it eliminated all but the first load and all but the last store. How's that unsafe? If I had to guess, the bug here is that LLVM doesn't want to hoist the load over the condition (which it is right

Hi Sanjay, The behaviour I’m talking about I’ve actually pinned down to CodeGenPrepare not working too well with ISA’s that don’t have a good scaled load. I have a patch to fix it that is going through performance testing now. Your testcase seems specific to x86 – for aarch64 we get the rather spiffy: _Z3fooPii: // @_Z3fooPii // BB#0:

Thanks for the background on the concurrent memory model. So, is it sufficient that the loop entry is guarded by condition (cbz at top) for preventing the race? The loop entry will be guarded by condition if loop has been rotated by loop rotate pass. Since LICM runs after loop rotate, we can use ScalarEvolution::isLoopEntryGuardedByCond to check if we can speculatively execute load without

On 6/27/13 3:57 AM, Folkert van Heusden wrote: > Eric, Andreas, > >>>> I have a system with an ext4 filesystem with its journal on an other >>>> device (an SSD). >>>> Now this SSD dropped of the sata bus so the filesystem went r/o. >>>> I would like to remove the journal but it says it can't because >>>> needs_check is set.

Hi, I experienced a crash in code compiled with Clang 10.0.0 due to a misaligned 64-bit data access. The (ARMv8) CPU is configured with SCTL.A == 1 (alignment check enable). With SCTLR.A == 0 the code runs as expected. After some investigation I came up with the following reproducer: ---8<-------8<-------8<-------8<-------8<-------8<-------8<------- $ cat test.c extern char