On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 02:07:05 am Anthony Liguori wrote:
Amit Shah wrote:
Functionally speaking, both virtio-console and virtio-serial do the same
thing. In fact, virtio-console is just a subset of virtio-serial.
If there are problems converging the two drivers in Linux, then I
suggest you
On (Mon) Aug 31 2009 [08:17:21], Anthony Liguori wrote:
- A lock has to be introduced to fetch one unused buffer from the list
and pass it on to the host. And this lock has to be a spinlock, just
because writes can be called from irq context.
I don't see a problem here.
You
Amit Shah wrote:
Can you please explain your rationale for being so rigid about merging
the two drivers?
Because they do the same thing. I'm not going to constantly rehash
this. It's been explained multiple times.
If there are implementation issues within the Linux drivers because of
On (Mon) Aug 31 2009 [09:21:13], Anthony Liguori wrote:
Amit Shah wrote:
Can you please explain your rationale for being so rigid about merging
the two drivers?
Because they do the same thing. I'm not going to constantly rehash
this. It's been explained multiple times.
It hardly
Amit Shah wrote:
On (Mon) Aug 31 2009 [09:21:13], Anthony Liguori wrote:
Amit Shah wrote:
Can you please explain your rationale for being so rigid about merging
the two drivers?
Because they do the same thing. I'm not going to constantly rehash
this. It's been explained
On (Mon) Aug 31 2009 [10:56:27], Anthony Liguori wrote:
Amit Shah wrote:
On (Mon) Aug 31 2009 [09:21:13], Anthony Liguori wrote:
Amit Shah wrote:
Can you please explain your rationale for being so rigid about merging
the two drivers?
Because they do the same thing. I'm
Amit Shah wrote:
We're ending up having to compromise on the performance or functionality
or simplicity the devices just because of this restriction.
This is _not_ a high performance device and there so far has been no
functionality impact. I don't understand why you keep dragging
Amit Shah wrote:
I did think about that as well, but there are problems:
- vnc clients (at least tigervnc) wants to receive the entire clipboard
in a single flush command. So in the pre-allocated buffers scenario we
could run short of the available buffers in some cases. So there will
On (Sun) Aug 30 2009 [07:48:37], Anthony Liguori wrote:
Amit Shah wrote:
I did think about that as well, but there are problems:
- vnc clients (at least tigervnc) wants to receive the entire clipboard
in a single flush command. So in the pre-allocated buffers scenario we
could run short
Amit Shah wrote:
On (Tue) Aug 25 2009 [11:47:20], Amit Shah wrote:
Hello all,
Here is a new iteration of the patch series that implements a
transport for guest and host communications.
The code has been updated to reuse the virtio-console device instead
of creating a new virtio-serial
Alan Cox wrote:
- Then, are we certain that there's no case where the tty layer will
call us with some lock held or in an atomic context ? To be honest,
I've totally lost track of the locking rules in tty land lately so it
might well be ok, but something to verify.
Some of the less
On (Thu) Aug 27 2009 [14:07:03], Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Wed, 2009-08-26 at 21:15 +0530, Amit Shah wrote:
- Convert hvc's usage of spinlocks to mutexes. I've no idea how this
will play out; I'm no expert here. But I did try doing this and so far
it all looks OK. No
On (Thu) Aug 27 2009 [15:04:45], Michael Ellerman wrote:
On Wed, 2009-08-26 at 21:15 +0530, Amit Shah wrote:
[cc'ing some people who have made some commits in hvc_console.c]
On (Wed) Aug 26 2009 [16:57:18], Amit Shah wrote:
On (Tue) Aug 25 2009 [11:47:20], Amit Shah wrote:
- Then, are we certain that there's no case where the tty layer will
call us with some lock held or in an atomic context ? To be honest,
I've totally lost track of the locking rules in tty land lately so it
might well be ok, but something to verify.
Some of the less well behaved line
On Thu, 2009-08-27 at 10:08 +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
- Then, are we certain that there's no case where the tty layer will
call us with some lock held or in an atomic context ? To be honest,
I've totally lost track of the locking rules in tty land lately so it
might well be ok, but something
On Thu, 2009-08-27 at 12:22 +0530, Amit Shah wrote:
On (Thu) Aug 27 2009 [15:04:45], Michael Ellerman wrote:
Ryan you called his code pure legacy baggage if you
don't ;)
On (Tue) Aug 25 2009 [11:47:20], Amit Shah wrote:
Hello all,
Here is a new iteration of the patch series that implements a
transport for guest and host communications.
The code has been updated to reuse the virtio-console device instead
of creating a new virtio-serial device.
And the
[cc'ing some people who have made some commits in hvc_console.c]
On (Wed) Aug 26 2009 [16:57:18], Amit Shah wrote:
On (Tue) Aug 25 2009 [11:47:20], Amit Shah wrote:
Hello all,
Here is a new iteration of the patch series that implements a
transport for guest and host communications.
On Wed, 2009-08-26 at 21:15 +0530, Amit Shah wrote:
- Convert hvc's usage of spinlocks to mutexes. I've no idea how this
will play out; I'm no expert here. But I did try doing this and so far
it all looks OK. No lockups, lockdep warnings, nothing. I have full
debugging enabled.
On Wed, 2009-08-26 at 21:15 +0530, Amit Shah wrote:
[cc'ing some people who have made some commits in hvc_console.c]
On (Wed) Aug 26 2009 [16:57:18], Amit Shah wrote:
On (Tue) Aug 25 2009 [11:47:20], Amit Shah wrote:
Hello all,
Here is a new iteration of the patch series that
Hello all,
Here is a new iteration of the patch series that implements a
transport for guest and host communications.
The code has been updated to reuse the virtio-console device instead
of creating a new virtio-serial device.
I've tested for compatibility (old qemu new kernel, new qemu old
21 matches
Mail list logo
