On Mon, 2010-10-11 at 17:21 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 09:15:52AM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > On Sat, 2010-10-09 at 23:44 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 08, 2010 at 09:12:52AM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 2010-10-08 at 10:40
On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 09:15:52AM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-10-09 at 23:44 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 08, 2010 at 09:12:52AM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2010-10-08 at 10:40 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Oct 07, 2010 at 10:
On Sat, 2010-10-09 at 23:44 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 08, 2010 at 09:12:52AM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > On Fri, 2010-10-08 at 10:40 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On Thu, Oct 07, 2010 at 10:02:25PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 2010-10-08 at 00:45
On Fri, Oct 08, 2010 at 09:12:52AM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-10-08 at 10:40 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 07, 2010 at 10:02:25PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2010-10-08 at 00:45 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Oct 07, 2010 at 11:
On Fri, 2010-10-08 at 10:40 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 07, 2010 at 10:02:25PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > On Fri, 2010-10-08 at 00:45 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On Thu, Oct 07, 2010 at 11:34:01AM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 2010-10-07 at 19:18
On Thu, Oct 07, 2010 at 10:02:25PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-10-08 at 00:45 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 07, 2010 at 11:34:01AM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2010-10-07 at 19:18 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Oct 04, 2010 at 03:
On Fri, 2010-10-08 at 00:45 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 07, 2010 at 11:34:01AM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > On Thu, 2010-10-07 at 19:18 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 04, 2010 at 03:26:30PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > > > --- a/hw/device-assignment.
On Thu, Oct 07, 2010 at 11:34:01AM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-10-07 at 19:18 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 04, 2010 at 03:26:30PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > > --- a/hw/device-assignment.c
> > > +++ b/hw/device-assignment.c
> ...
> > > @@ -1644,58 +1621,64
On Thu, 2010-10-07 at 19:18 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 04, 2010 at 03:26:30PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > --- a/hw/device-assignment.c
> > +++ b/hw/device-assignment.c
...
> > @@ -1644,58 +1621,64 @@ void add_assigned_devices(PCIBus *bus, const char
> > **devices, int n_d
On Mon, Oct 04, 2010 at 03:26:30PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> We don't need to duplicate PCI code for mapping and managing the
> option ROM for an assigned device. We're already using an in-memory
> copy of the ROM, so we can simply fill the contents from the physical
> device and pass the re
We don't need to duplicate PCI code for mapping and managing the
option ROM for an assigned device. We're already using an in-memory
copy of the ROM, so we can simply fill the contents from the physical
device and pass the rest off to PCI. As a benefit, we can now make
use of the rombar and romfi
11 matches
Mail list logo