On 05/28/2013 07:12:32 PM, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
On 05/29/2013 09:35 AM, Scott Wood wrote:
On 05/28/2013 06:30:40 PM, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
@@ -939,6 +940,9 @@ struct kvm_s390_ucas_mapping {
#define KVM_GET_DEVICE_ATTR _IOW(KVMIO, 0xe2, struct
kvm_device_attr)
On 05/30/2013 06:05 AM, Scott Wood wrote:
On 05/28/2013 07:12:32 PM, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
On 05/29/2013 09:35 AM, Scott Wood wrote:
On 05/28/2013 06:30:40 PM, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
@@ -939,6 +940,9 @@ struct kvm_s390_ucas_mapping {
#define KVM_GET_DEVICE_ATTR
On 05/29/2013 06:10:33 PM, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
On 05/30/2013 06:05 AM, Scott Wood wrote:
On 05/28/2013 07:12:32 PM, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
On 05/29/2013 09:35 AM, Scott Wood wrote:
On 05/28/2013 06:30:40 PM, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
@@ -939,6 +940,9 @@ struct
On 05/30/2013 09:14 AM, Scott Wood wrote:
On 05/29/2013 06:10:33 PM, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
On 05/30/2013 06:05 AM, Scott Wood wrote:
On 05/28/2013 07:12:32 PM, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
On 05/29/2013 09:35 AM, Scott Wood wrote:
On 05/28/2013 06:30:40 PM, Alexey Kardashevskiy
On 05/28/2013 07:41:18 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Tue, 2013-05-28 at 12:41 -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
I believe Alex is staying far away from e-mail on his vacation.
He's
asked me to fill in for him while he's gone.
The patch itself seems reasonable (though I don't know much
On Wed, 2013-05-29 at 18:38 -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
Yes. I'd like to have them in. Their implementation is actually fairly
trivial and they cannot be emulated by qemu if the rest of the XICS is
in the kernel, so it's a problem.
OK. Does it make more sense for you to take it as Paul
On 05/29/2013 06:57:32 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Wed, 2013-05-29 at 18:38 -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
Yes. I'd like to have them in. Their implementation is actually
fairly
trivial and they cannot be emulated by qemu if the rest of the
XICS is
in the kernel, so it's a
