On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 11:55:27AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
> On 26.04.2013, at 11:53, Gleb Natapov wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 01:59:20PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> >> On 04/25/2013 01:22:04 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 11:51:08AM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
On 26.04.2013, at 11:53, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 01:59:20PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
>> On 04/25/2013 01:22:04 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
>>> On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 11:51:08AM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
On 04/25/2013 05:47:39 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
> On 25.04.
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 01:59:20PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> On 04/25/2013 01:22:04 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 11:51:08AM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> >> On 04/25/2013 05:47:39 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
> >> >
> >> >On 25.04.2013, at 11:43, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>>
On 04/25/2013 01:22:04 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 11:51:08AM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> On 04/25/2013 05:47:39 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
> >
> >On 25.04.2013, at 11:43, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >
> >>> +void kvm_device_put(struct kvm_device *dev)
> >>> +{
> >>> + if (atomic_
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 11:51:08AM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> On 04/25/2013 05:47:39 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
> >
> >On 25.04.2013, at 11:43, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >
> >>> +void kvm_device_put(struct kvm_device *dev)
> >>> +{
> >>> + if (atomic_dec_and_test(&dev->users))
> >>> + dev->ops->
On 04/25/2013 05:47:39 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 25.04.2013, at 11:43, Gleb Natapov wrote:
>> +void kvm_device_put(struct kvm_device *dev)
>> +{
>> + if (atomic_dec_and_test(&dev->users))
>> + dev->ops->destroy(dev);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int kvm_device_release(struct inode
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 03:45:14PM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
> >>> Please move struct definitions and KVM_CREATE_DEVICE_TEST define out
> >>> from ioctl definition block.
> >>
> >> Let me change that in my tree...
> >>
> > So are you sending this via your tree and I should not apply it directl
On 25.04.2013, at 14:07, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 12:47:39PM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>
>> On 25.04.2013, at 11:43, Gleb Natapov wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 07:08:42PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
Currently, devices that are emulated inside KVM are configure
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 12:47:39PM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
> On 25.04.2013, at 11:43, Gleb Natapov wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 07:08:42PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> >> Currently, devices that are emulated inside KVM are configured in a
> >> hardcoded manner based on an assumption
On 25.04.2013, at 11:43, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 07:08:42PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
>> Currently, devices that are emulated inside KVM are configured in a
>> hardcoded manner based on an assumption that any given architecture
>> only has one way to do it. If there's any ne
On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 07:08:42PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> Currently, devices that are emulated inside KVM are configured in a
> hardcoded manner based on an assumption that any given architecture
> only has one way to do it. If there's any need to access device state,
> it is done through infl
Currently, devices that are emulated inside KVM are configured in a
hardcoded manner based on an assumption that any given architecture
only has one way to do it. If there's any need to access device state,
it is done through inflexible one-purpose-only IOCTLs (e.g.
KVM_GET/SET_LAPIC). Defining n
12 matches
Mail list logo
