similar to: Windows 8 virtualized on a Linux host

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 I have been reading some articles and found myself a little bit confused. 1-

> > 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 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"

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

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

Hi @all! I tested what happens with a file which is saved at a FAT32 partition and then this partition is converted to NTFS. So first I transfered the file with rsync from the FAT32 partition to my Linux /home folder. Then I converted the FAT32 partition to NTFS. After the convertation I transfered the file again to see what has changed (amount of data). I was surprised!!!! Nothing has changed!!!

Hi, I am not an engineer or linux expert but I have been using syslinux to boot live disk filesets (extracted from iso's) residing on fat32 and NTFS volumes. In FAT32 there has been no problem going with larger cluster sizes up to the nominal maximum of 64K however, with NTFS it has not been possible to exceed the cluster size of 4096. With NTFS formatted using clusters of 8192 or larger,

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

I have a question regarding moving Wine's C:/ drive to another file system. My hard drive is currently partitioned into 3 primaries. I have a NTFS partition that Windows is on, a Ext4 with Ubuntu, and a third, larger, FAT32 partition that I use to hold cross-OS data (music, pictures, documents ect). I have had infinite difficulty getting wine to run apps that I installed (through wine) to my

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:

Hi All I've just shifteed over to linux,form Windows.I 'm having 5 partations for use by my windows XP Professional and another one by linux.The partation table is as shown : ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ [root at localhost6 ~]# fdisk -l Disk /dev/hdc: 250.0 GB, 250059350016

> 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

Hello everyone, It''s a particularly slow Friday afternoon here, so time to try stuff out... I''ve just installed Instant Rails on a USB key, thinking it would be a great way of showing off Rails in general, giving a progress update to customers, trying out ideas, and generally all the other benefits that come from having a completely portable environment. However, the 168Mb of

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

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:

Hi, Firstly background - FreeNAS 0.7.2 (FreeBSD 7.3-RELEASE-p1) Samba 3.5.3 1TB disk, 500GB FAT32 (/dev/da1s1) + 500GB NTFS (/dev/da1s4) Just to clear it up, I'm using FAT32 and NTFS because this is actually a media center box that functions as an external HDD when plugged into USB. I'm using it as a storage device because its quite large a disk, but may from time to time use it as a