similar to: Libvirt-install w8 iso

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...

Some virtio-win drivers contain more files than just *.{cat,inf,sys}. They are filtered out currently, which prevents the drivers from being installed by PnP. Stop filtering driver files by extension, and copy all of them instead. Signed-off-by: Roman Kagan <rkagan@virtuozzo.com> --- v1 -> v2: - update unit test to match the changed behavior v2v/v2v_unit_tests.ml | 202

Instead of trying to split and parse elements from virtio-win paths, use the '*.inf' files supplied with the drivers to control how Windows drivers are installed. The following emails best explain how this works: https://www.redhat.com/archives/libguestfs/2015-October/msg00352.html https://www.redhat.com/archives/libguestfs/2015-November/msg00065.html Currently the product variant (eg.

On Tue, 2015-11-17 at 19:44 +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > 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/*

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

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

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-

+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"

On Sat, Dec 5, 2015, 9:39 PM peter dalgaard <pdalgd at gmail.com> wrote: > On 05 Dec 2015, at 18:07 , arnaud gaboury <arnaud.gaboury at gmail.com> wrote: > > In my shell environment, I have set a path to R_PROFILE_USER. The > file, Rprofile.R, is a collection of small hacks. > > I want to build rstudio-server from source. Best is to $ unset > R_PROFILE_USER

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

I've been trying to build R 3.3.1 inside of a Nix environment on a Ubuntu 16.04 machine. It builds, but then it fails a regression test related to time zones, and I hope that someone could help me debug the problem. The failing test is in tests/reg-tests-rc.R (https://github.com/wch/r-source/blob/c3fe9cd4/tests/reg-tests-1c.R#L1577-L1587): ## format.POSIXlt() of Jan.1 if 1941 or '42 is

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, In voicemail. i declare : 1000 => 1234, xxxx yyyy,tintin@milou.com I don't see what's password 1234 is for ? password for what ? Where this password is used ? Where this password is defined ? Thanks Chistophe

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

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

On 02/10/14 07:41, Thomas Schmitt wrote: > Hi, > > email at missionaccomplish.com wrote: >> We been trying to boot the image in vbox using efi emulation but it >> complains about kernel not supporting handover. > If it complains about a kernel then it should be past El Torito > or GPT. The job of xorriso is to point BIOS and EFI to their > boot images. Everything else

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

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 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