RSB Qemu Configuration

Chris Johns chrisj at
Tue Apr 1 22:18:40 UTC 2014

On 2/04/2014 4:15 am, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> Hi
> Should there be separate qemu configurations for each target architecture?
> I know from my experience in the past that it is rare for all of them to be
> working at the same time and patches apply cleanly.
> qemu can be built for a single target so I thought this makes sense.

Yeah good point and it does make sense from our point of view. The only 
problem is it stopping us being able to check what qemu is up to and 
what has regressed. If we can figure out a way to manage this maybe it 
would help.

> At this point, we have separate arm and sparc patches floating around
> and I was going to go back through my qemu versions and try to get
> them into rsb. Some use patches against old versions. Yes.. they need to
> be updated, but they are all out of sync now, just like gcc and friends
> can be.
> Thoughts?

I would need to see each patch. It does kind of support the reason for 
keeping as close to the current code as we can. We need working qemu 
versions but it is not quite as critical as a compiler and we need to be 
testing on real hardware as validate the qemu based results.

The RSB support patchworks and this has let me follow qemu at that 
level. It seems with qemu git+patchworks is as close to mainline as I 
can see we can get to. I really cannot not follow the process in qemu 
and how patches are moved from patchworks to the git repo.


More information about the devel mailing list