On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 10:35:27AM +0800, Sheng Yang wrote:
On Tuesday 05 May 2009 20:46:04 Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 07:49:10AM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 01:34:50PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 07:19:45AM
On Wednesday 06 May 2009 15:31:18 Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 10:35:27AM +0800, Sheng Yang wrote:
On Tuesday 05 May 2009 20:46:04 Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 07:49:10AM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 01:34:50PM +0300,
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 10:30:17PM +0800, Sheng Yang wrote:
If guest can write to the real device MSI-X table directly, it would
cause chaos on interrupt delivery, for what guest see is totally
different with what's host see...
Obviously.
Thanks,
What's the reason
On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 12:51:36PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 10:30:17PM +0800, Sheng Yang wrote:
If guest can write to the real device MSI-X table directly, it would
cause chaos on interrupt delivery, for what guest see is totally
different with
On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 01:34:50PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 07:19:45AM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 12:51:36PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 10:30:17PM +0800, Sheng Yang wrote:
If guest can write to
On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 07:19:45AM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 12:51:36PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 10:30:17PM +0800, Sheng Yang wrote:
If guest can write to the real device MSI-X table directly, it
would
cause chaos
On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 07:49:10AM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 01:34:50PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 07:19:45AM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 12:51:36PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009
On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 07:49:10AM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 01:34:50PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 07:19:45AM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 12:51:36PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009
On Tuesday 05 May 2009 20:46:04 Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 07:49:10AM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 01:34:50PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 07:19:45AM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On Tue, May 05, 2009 at
Sheng Yang wrote:
msix_table_page is a page, and mmap allocate memory on page boundary. So
I use it.
Just wondering, would e.g. posix_memalign work here as well?
Um, I think it should work too.
I think qemu_malloc() would work just as well. The hardware never sees
the page,
Sheng, Marcelo,
I've been reading code in qemu/hw/device-assignment.c, and
I have a couple of questions about msi-x implementation:
1. What is the reason that msix_table_page is allocated
with mmap and not with e.g. malloc?
2. msix_table_page has the guest view of the msix table for the device.
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 09:16:14PM +0800, Sheng Yang wrote:
On Monday 27 April 2009 18:41:17 Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
Sheng, Marcelo,
I've been reading code in qemu/hw/device-assignment.c, and
I have a couple of questions about msi-x implementation:
Hi Michael
1. What is the reason
On Monday 27 April 2009 21:51:34 Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 09:16:14PM +0800, Sheng Yang wrote:
On Monday 27 April 2009 18:41:17 Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
Sheng, Marcelo,
I've been reading code in qemu/hw/device-assignment.c, and
I have a couple of questions
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 10:03:59PM +0800, Sheng Yang wrote:
On Monday 27 April 2009 21:51:34 Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 09:16:14PM +0800, Sheng Yang wrote:
On Monday 27 April 2009 18:41:17 Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
Sheng, Marcelo,
I've been reading code in
On Monday 27 April 2009 22:15:04 Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 10:03:59PM +0800, Sheng Yang wrote:
On Monday 27 April 2009 21:51:34 Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 09:16:14PM +0800, Sheng Yang wrote:
On Monday 27 April 2009 18:41:17 Michael S.
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 10:30:17PM +0800, Sheng Yang wrote:
My suggestion is get mask bit support first, then consider optimization.
Yea.
Thanks for the explanations!
--
MST
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe kvm in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
16 matches
Mail list logo
