On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 at 14:17, Heinrich Schuchardt
wrote:
>
> On 29.02.24 13:34, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 at 11:17, Heinrich Schuchardt
> > wrote:
> >>> But yes, I'm not surprised that CXL runs into this. Heinrich,
> >>> are you doing CXL testing, or is this some other
On 29.02.24 13:34, Peter Maydell wrote:
On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 at 11:17, Heinrich Schuchardt
wrote:
But yes, I'm not surprised that CXL runs into this. Heinrich,
are you doing CXL testing, or is this some other workload?
I am running the UEFI Self-Certification Tests (SCT) on EDK 2 using:
On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 at 12:52, Mattias Nissler wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 1:35 PM Peter Maydell
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 at 11:17, Heinrich Schuchardt
> > wrote:
> > > > But yes, I'm not surprised that CXL runs into this. Heinrich,
> > > > are you doing CXL testing, or is
On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 1:35 PM Peter Maydell wrote:
>
> On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 at 11:17, Heinrich Schuchardt
> wrote:
> > > But yes, I'm not surprised that CXL runs into this. Heinrich,
> > > are you doing CXL testing, or is this some other workload?
> >
> > I am running the UEFI
On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 at 11:17, Heinrich Schuchardt
wrote:
> > But yes, I'm not surprised that CXL runs into this. Heinrich,
> > are you doing CXL testing, or is this some other workload?
>
> I am running the UEFI Self-Certification Tests (SCT) on EDK 2 using:
>
> qemu-system-riscv64 \
>-M
On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 12:12 PM Peter Maydell wrote:
>
> On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 at 10:59, Jonathan Cameron
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 09:38:29 +
> > Peter Maydell wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 at 19:07, Heinrich Schuchardt
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 28.02.24 19:39,
On 29.02.24 12:11, Peter Maydell wrote:
On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 at 10:59, Jonathan Cameron
wrote:
On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 09:38:29 +
Peter Maydell wrote:
On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 at 19:07, Heinrich Schuchardt
wrote:
On 28.02.24 19:39, Peter Maydell wrote:
The limitation to a page dates back to
On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 at 10:59, Jonathan Cameron
wrote:
>
> On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 09:38:29 +
> Peter Maydell wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 at 19:07, Heinrich Schuchardt
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On 28.02.24 19:39, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > > > The limitation to a page dates back to commit
On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 09:38:29 +
Peter Maydell wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 at 19:07, Heinrich Schuchardt
> wrote:
> >
> > On 28.02.24 19:39, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > > The limitation to a page dates back to commit 6d16c2f88f2a in 2009,
> > > which was the first implementation of this
On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 11:22:24 +0100
Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
> On 29.02.24 02:11, Peter Xu wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 08:07:47PM +0100, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
> >> On 28.02.24 19:39, Peter Maydell wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 at 18:28, Heinrich Schuchardt
> >>> wrote:
>
On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 11:22 AM Heinrich Schuchardt
wrote:
>
> On 29.02.24 02:11, Peter Xu wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 08:07:47PM +0100, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
> >> On 28.02.24 19:39, Peter Maydell wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 at 18:28, Heinrich Schuchardt
> >>> wrote:
>
>
On 29.02.24 02:11, Peter Xu wrote:
On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 08:07:47PM +0100, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
On 28.02.24 19:39, Peter Maydell wrote:
On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 at 18:28, Heinrich Schuchardt
wrote:
On 28.02.24 16:06, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
Hi Heinrich,
On 28/2/24 13:59, Heinrich
On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 at 19:07, Heinrich Schuchardt
wrote:
>
> On 28.02.24 19:39, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > The limitation to a page dates back to commit 6d16c2f88f2a in 2009,
> > which was the first implementation of this function. I don't think
> > there's a particular reason for that value beyond
On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 08:07:47PM +0100, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
> On 28.02.24 19:39, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 at 18:28, Heinrich Schuchardt
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On 28.02.24 16:06, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> > > > Hi Heinrich,
> > > >
> > > > On 28/2/24 13:59,
On 28.02.24 19:39, Peter Maydell wrote:
On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 at 18:28, Heinrich Schuchardt
wrote:
On 28.02.24 16:06, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
Hi Heinrich,
On 28/2/24 13:59, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
virtqueue_map_desc() is called with values of sz exceeding that may
exceed
On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 at 18:28, Heinrich Schuchardt
wrote:
>
> On 28.02.24 16:06, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> > Hi Heinrich,
> >
> > On 28/2/24 13:59, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
> >> virtqueue_map_desc() is called with values of sz exceeding that may
> >> exceed
> >> TARGET_PAGE_SIZE. sz =
On 28.02.24 16:06, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
Hi Heinrich,
On 28/2/24 13:59, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
virtqueue_map_desc() is called with values of sz exceeding that may
exceed
TARGET_PAGE_SIZE. sz = 0x2800 has been observed.
We only support a single bounce buffer. We have to avoid
Hi Heinrich,
On 28/2/24 13:59, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
virtqueue_map_desc() is called with values of sz exceeding that may exceed
TARGET_PAGE_SIZE. sz = 0x2800 has been observed.
We only support a single bounce buffer. We have to avoid
virtqueue_map_desc() calling address_space_map()
virtqueue_map_desc() is called with values of sz exceeding that may exceed
TARGET_PAGE_SIZE. sz = 0x2800 has been observed.
We only support a single bounce buffer. We have to avoid
virtqueue_map_desc() calling address_space_map() multiple times. Otherwise
we see an error
qemu: virtio: bogus
19 matches
Mail list logo