On Thu, 2010-07-29 at 17:27 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 04:13:19PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
On Thu, 2010-07-29 at 00:57 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 03:57:02PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
Something like
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 04:13:19PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
On Thu, 2010-07-29 at 00:57 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 03:57:02PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
Something like GET_MSIX_VECTORS seems like a user library routine to me.
The PCI config space
On Tuesday, July 27, 2010 04:53:22 pm Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 03:13:14PM -0700, Tom Lyon wrote:
[ Sorry for the long hiatus, I've been wrapped up in other issues.]
I think the fundamental issue to resolve is to decide on the model which
the VFIO driver presents
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 02:14:21PM -0700, Tom Lyon wrote:
On Tuesday, July 27, 2010 04:53:22 pm Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 03:13:14PM -0700, Tom Lyon wrote:
[ Sorry for the long hiatus, I've been wrapped up in other issues.]
I think the fundamental issue to
On Wed, 2010-07-28 at 14:14 -0700, Tom Lyon wrote:
On Tuesday, July 27, 2010 04:53:22 pm Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 03:13:14PM -0700, Tom Lyon wrote:
[ Sorry for the long hiatus, I've been wrapped up in other issues.]
I think the fundamental issue to resolve is
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 03:57:02PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
Something like GET_MSIX_VECTORS seems like a user library routine to me.
The PCI config space is well specified and if we try to do more than
shortcut trivial operations (like getting the BAR length), we risk
losing
On Thu, 2010-07-29 at 00:57 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 03:57:02PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
Something like GET_MSIX_VECTORS seems like a user library routine to me.
The PCI config space is well specified and if we try to do more than
shortcut trivial
[ Sorry for the long hiatus, I've been wrapped up in other issues.]
I think the fundamental issue to resolve is to decide on the model which the
VFIO driver presents to its users.
Fundamentally, VFIO as part of the OS must protect the system from its users
and also protect the users from each
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 03:13:14PM -0700, Tom Lyon wrote:
[ Sorry for the long hiatus, I've been wrapped up in other issues.]
I think the fundamental issue to resolve is to decide on the model which the
VFIO driver presents to its users.
Fundamentally, VFIO as part of the OS must protect
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 10:45:23AM +0200, Piotr Jaroszy??ski wrote:
On 16 July 2010 23:58, Tom Lyon p...@cisco.com wrote:
The VFIO driver is used to allow privileged AND non-privileged processes
to
implement user-level device drivers for any well-behaved PCI, PCI-X, and
PCIe
devices.
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 10:56:47PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
Hi Tom, Michael,
Comments for both of you below. Tom, what does this build against? Are
we still on 2.6.34?
On Sun, 2010-07-18 at 12:39 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
Hi Tom,
---
In this version:
There are
Hi Tom,
---
In this version:
There are lots of bug fixes and cleanups in this version, but the main
change is to check to make sure that the IOMMU has interrupt remapping
enabled, which is necessary to prevent user level code from triggering
spurious interrupts for other devices. Since
Hi Tom, Michael,
Comments for both of you below. Tom, what does this build against? Are
we still on 2.6.34?
On Sun, 2010-07-18 at 12:39 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
Hi Tom,
---
In this version:
There are lots of bug fixes and cleanups in this version, but the main
change is to
On 16 July 2010 23:58, Tom Lyon p...@cisco.com wrote:
The VFIO driver is used to allow privileged AND non-privileged processes to
implement user-level device drivers for any well-behaved PCI, PCI-X, and PCIe
devices.
Thanks for working on that! I wonder whether it's possible to say what
are
14 matches
Mail list logo
