Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote:
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 10:45:57AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
+ifeq ($(USE_KVM), 1)
+OBJS+= device-assignment.o
+endif
I don't think you want to build this on PPC so I think you need a
stronger check.
Good point. How about checking TARGET_BASE_ARCH = i386?
Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote:
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 10:45:57AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
+ifeq ($(USE_KVM), 1)
+OBJS+= device-assignment.o
+endif
I don't think you want to build this on PPC so I think you need a
stronger check.
Good point. How about checking TARGET_BASE_ARCH = i386?
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 04:55:22PM +, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
On Tue, 2008-10-28 at 12:06 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
+static int get_real_device(AssignedDevice *pci_dev, uint8_t r_bus,
+ uint8_t r_dev, uint8_t r_func)
+{
+char dir[128],
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 12:25:50PM +0200, Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote:
You still succeed if KVM_CAP_DEVICE_ASSIGNMENT isn't defined?
That means a newer userspace compiled on an older kernel will
silently fail if they try to do device assignment. There's
probably no reason to build this
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 03:56:54PM +0800, Zhang, Xiantao wrote:
Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote:
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 10:45:57AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
+ifeq ($(USE_KVM), 1)
+OBJS+= device-assignment.o
+endif
I don't think you want to build this on PPC so I think you need a
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 05:53:05PM +0200, Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote:
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 10:45:57AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
+ifeq ($(USE_KVM), 1)
+OBJS+= device-assignment.o
+endif
I don't think you want to build this on PPC so I think you need a
stronger check.
Good point.
On Wed, 2008-10-29 at 12:31 +0200, Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote:
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 04:55:22PM +, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
On Tue, 2008-10-28 at 12:06 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+void assigned_dev_set_vector(int irq, int vector);
+void assigned_dev_ack_mirq(int vector);
...
On Wed, 2008-10-29 at 12:31 +0200, Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote:
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 04:55:22PM +, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
nr_assigned_devices isn't actually used anywhere.
Nuked.
Still there.
+#define MAX_IO_REGIONS (6)
Perhaps a comment to say this is the number of BARs in the
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 11:15:10AM +, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
On Wed, 2008-10-29 at 12:31 +0200, Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote:
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 04:55:22PM +, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
nr_assigned_devices isn't actually used anywhere.
Nuked.
Still there.
+#define
On Wed, 2008-10-29 at 14:20 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
diff --git a/qemu/hw/piix_pci.c b/qemu/hw/piix_pci.c
index b9067b8..27d5f02 100644
--- a/qemu/hw/piix_pci.c
+++ b/qemu/hw/piix_pci.c
@@ -246,9 +246,9 @@ static void piix3_set_irq(qemu_irq *pic, int
irq_num, int level)
int
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 12:27:19PM +, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
On Wed, 2008-10-29 at 14:20 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
diff --git a/qemu/hw/piix_pci.c b/qemu/hw/piix_pci.c
index b9067b8..27d5f02 100644
--- a/qemu/hw/piix_pci.c
+++ b/qemu/hw/piix_pci.c
@@ -246,9 +246,9 @@ static
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Muli Ben-Yehuda [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This patch has been contributed to by the following people:
Or Sagi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nir Peleg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Amit Shah [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ben-Ami Yassour [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Weidong Han [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Glauber de
Han, Weidong wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Muli Ben-Yehuda [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This patch has been contributed to by the following people:
Or Sagi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nir Peleg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Amit Shah [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ben-Ami Yassour [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Weidong Han [EMAIL
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Muli Ben-Yehuda [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This patch has been contributed to by the following people:
Or Sagi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nir Peleg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Amit Shah [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ben-Ami Yassour [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Weidong Han [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Glauber de
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 10:10:07PM +0800, Han, Weidong wrote:
+DEBUG(r_pio=%08x e_physbase=%08x r_virtbase=%08lx value=%08x\n,
+ r_pio, (int)r_access-e_physbase,
+ (unsigned long)r_access-r_virtbase, value);
should be (unsigned long)r_access-u.r_virtbase
Thanks, actually it
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Signed-off-by: Amit Shah [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Signed-off-by: Muli Ben-Yehuda [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
qemu/Makefile.target|3 +
qemu/hw/device-assignment.c | 641 +++
qemu/hw/device-assignment.h | 117
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 11:36:10PM +0800, Han, Weidong wrote:
diff --git a/qemu/qemu-kvm.c b/qemu/qemu-kvm.c
index c5f3f29..5e66832 100644
--- a/qemu/qemu-kvm.c
+++ b/qemu/qemu-kvm.c
@@ -20,6 +20,7 @@ int kvm_pit = 1;
#include console.h
#include block.h
#include compatfd.h
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 10:45:57AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
+ifeq ($(USE_KVM), 1)
+OBJS+= device-assignment.o
+endif
I don't think you want to build this on PPC so I think you need a
stronger check.
Good point. How about checking TARGET_BASE_ARCH = i386?
+static void
On Tue, 2008-10-28 at 12:06 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
+static int get_real_device(AssignedDevice *pci_dev, uint8_t r_bus,
+ uint8_t r_dev, uint8_t r_func)
+{
+char dir[128], name[128];
+int fd, r = 0;
+FILE *f;
+unsigned long long start,
19 matches
Mail list logo
