Still need more time to review the whole code changes but I noticed one thing.
We've been using the term "hyper_dmabuf" for hypervisor-agnostic linux dmabuf
solution and we are planning to call any of our future solution for other
hypervisors the same name. So having same name for this xen-specifi
(changed subject and decoupling from udmabuf thread)
On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 08:59:32AM +0300, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote:
> On 04/10/2018 08:26 PM, Dongwon Kim wrote:
> >On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 09:37:53AM +0300, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote:
> >>On 04/06/2018 09:57 PM,
On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 09:37:53AM +0300, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote:
> On 04/06/2018 09:57 PM, Dongwon Kim wrote:
> >On Fri, Apr 06, 2018 at 03:36:03PM +0300, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote:
> >>On 04/06/2018 02:57 PM, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> &g
On Fri, Apr 06, 2018 at 03:36:03PM +0300, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote:
> On 04/06/2018 02:57 PM, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> >>>I fail to see any common ground for xen-zcopy and udmabuf ...
> >>Does the above mean you can assume that xen-zcopy and udmabuf
> >>can co-exist as two differen
