On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 10:11:31AM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 04:49:58PM +1000, David Gibson wrote:
On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 09:46:07AM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
This conflicts with deduplication of properties work.
I'll apply on top of that, so don't
This conflicts with deduplication of properties work.
I'll apply on top of that, so don't worry.
On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 12:43:06PM +1000, David Gibson wrote:
Anthony..
please apply?
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 12:19:40PM +1100, David Gibson wrote:
Currently the virtio balloon device, when
On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 09:46:07AM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
This conflicts with deduplication of properties work.
I'll apply on top of that, so don't worry.
Alrighty. Any ETA?
On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 12:43:06PM +1000, David Gibson wrote:
Anthony..
please apply?
On Mon,
On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 04:49:58PM +1000, David Gibson wrote:
On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 09:46:07AM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
This conflicts with deduplication of properties work.
I'll apply on top of that, so don't worry.
Alrighty. Any ETA?
I expect to send a pull request Tuesday.
Anthony..
please apply?
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 12:19:40PM +1100, David Gibson wrote:
Currently the virtio balloon device, when using the virtio-pci interface
advertises itself with PCI class code MEMORY_RAM. This is wrong; the
balloon is vaguely related to memory, but is nothing like a PCI
Currently the virtio balloon device, when using the virtio-pci interface
advertises itself with PCI class code MEMORY_RAM. This is wrong; the
balloon is vaguely related to memory, but is nothing like a PCI memory
device in the meaning of the class code, and this code is not required or
suggested
On 03/22/2012 08:52 PM, David Gibson wrote:
There is no fragment of code quite like the one you quote, only the
check for valid class values, which will accomplish the same thing.
It seemed clearer to have the default class value in the property
definition be, well, the default class value,
Currently the virtio balloon device, when using the virtio-pci interface
advertises itself with PCI class code MEMORY_RAM. This is wrong; the
balloon is vaguely related to memory, but is nothing like a PCI memory
device in the meaning of the class code, and this code is not required or
suggested
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 9:09 AM, David Gibson
da...@gibson.dropbear.id.au wrote:
diff --git a/hw/pc_piix.c b/hw/pc_piix.c
index 3f99f9a..72a4250 100644
--- a/hw/pc_piix.c
+++ b/hw/pc_piix.c
@@ -386,6 +386,10 @@ static QEMUMachine pc_machine_v1_0 = {
.driver = isa-fdc,
+if (proxy-class_code != PCI_CLASS_OTHERS
+proxy-class_code != PCI_CLASS_MEMORY_RAM) /* qemu 1.1 */
+proxy-class_code = PCI_CLASS_OTHERS;
+
Why is this hunk is needed?
Catch users doing -device virtio-balloon,class=42
cheers,
Gerd
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 10:27 AM, Gerd Hoffmann kra...@redhat.com wrote:
+ if (proxy-class_code != PCI_CLASS_OTHERS
+ proxy-class_code != PCI_CLASS_MEMORY_RAM) /* qemu 1.1 */
+ proxy-class_code = PCI_CLASS_OTHERS;
+
Why is this hunk is needed?
Catch users doing -device
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 08:09:27PM +1100, David Gibson wrote:
diff --git a/hw/virtio-pci.c b/hw/virtio-pci.c
index a0fb7c1..1fd5768 100644
--- a/hw/virtio-pci.c
+++ b/hw/virtio-pci.c
@@ -790,6 +790,10 @@ static int virtio_balloon_init_pci(PCIDevice *pci_dev)
VirtIOPCIProxy *proxy =
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 10:01:46AM +, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 9:09 AM, David Gibson
da...@gibson.dropbear.id.au wrote:
diff --git a/hw/pc_piix.c b/hw/pc_piix.c
index 3f99f9a..72a4250 100644
--- a/hw/pc_piix.c
+++ b/hw/pc_piix.c
@@ -386,6 +386,10 @@ static
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 01:53:33PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 08:09:27PM +1100, David Gibson wrote:
diff --git a/hw/virtio-pci.c b/hw/virtio-pci.c
index a0fb7c1..1fd5768 100644
--- a/hw/virtio-pci.c
+++ b/hw/virtio-pci.c
@@ -790,6 +790,10 @@ static int
Hi,
It seems your Mail-Followup-To: header causes my client to drop you
from the To: list.
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 11:26 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi stefa...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 09:19:47PM +1100, David Gibson wrote:
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 09:54:20AM +, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 11:26:15AM +, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 09:19:47PM +1100, David Gibson wrote:
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 09:54:20AM +, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 12:42 AM, David Gibson
da...@gibson.dropbear.id.au wrote:
On Mon, Mar
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 11:28:47AM +, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
Hi,
It seems your Mail-Followup-To: header causes my client to drop you
from the To: list.
Not mine, it's added by the list AFAICT. And it's frickin' annoying.
--
David Gibson| I'll have my music baroque,
On 03/21/2012 08:08 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 11:26:15AM +, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 09:19:47PM +1100, David Gibson wrote:
Looking at hw/pc_piix.c there are QEMUMachine types for each QEMU
release. Legacy machine types (e.g.
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 09:42:41AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 03/21/2012 08:08 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 11:26:15AM +, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 09:19:47PM +1100, David Gibson wrote:
Looking at hw/pc_piix.c there are QEMUMachine types
On 03/21/2012 10:10 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 09:42:41AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 03/21/2012 08:08 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 11:26:15AM +, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 09:19:47PM +1100, David Gibson wrote:
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 10:14:35AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 03/21/2012 10:10 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 09:42:41AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 03/21/2012 08:08 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 11:26:15AM +, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On 03/21/2012 11:11 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 10:14:35AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 03/21/2012 10:10 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 09:42:41AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 03/21/2012 08:08 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, Mar
On 03/21/2012 11:26 AM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 03/21/2012 11:11 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
Frankly I don't see value in making it visible to the user,
at all. We are just triggering windows reactivations
without any user benefit. Why not return a fixed value there
to avoid that?
I don't
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 11:26:50AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 03/21/2012 11:11 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 10:14:35AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 03/21/2012 10:10 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 09:42:41AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 11:33:21AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 03/21/2012 11:26 AM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 03/21/2012 11:11 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
Frankly I don't see value in making it visible to the user,
at all. We are just triggering windows reactivations
without any user
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 12:42 AM, David Gibson
da...@gibson.dropbear.id.au wrote:
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 11:33:10AM +, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 03:59:23PM +1100, David Gibson wrote:
Currently the virtio balloon device, when using the virtio-pci interface
advertises
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 09:54:20AM +, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 12:42 AM, David Gibson
da...@gibson.dropbear.id.au wrote:
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 11:33:10AM +, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 03:59:23PM +1100, David Gibson wrote:
Currently the
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 11:42:06AM +1100, David Gibson wrote:
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 11:33:10AM +, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 03:59:23PM +1100, David Gibson wrote:
Currently the virtio balloon device, when using the virtio-pci interface
advertises itself with PCI
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 03:59:23PM +1100, David Gibson wrote:
Currently the virtio balloon device, when using the virtio-pci interface
advertises itself with PCI class code MEMORY_RAM. This is wrong; the
balloon is vaguely related to memory, but is nothing like a PCI memory
device in the
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 11:33:10AM +, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 03:59:23PM +1100, David Gibson wrote:
Currently the virtio balloon device, when using the virtio-pci interface
advertises itself with PCI class code MEMORY_RAM. This is wrong; the
balloon is vaguely
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 12:03:08PM +1100, David Gibson wrote:
Currently the virtio balloon device, when using the virtio-pci interface
advertises itself with PCI class code MEMORY_RAM. This is wrong; the
balloon is vaguely related to memory, but is nothing like a PCI memory
device in the
On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 02:38:42PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 12:03:08PM +1100, David Gibson wrote:
Currently the virtio balloon device, when using the virtio-pci interface
advertises itself with PCI class code MEMORY_RAM. This is wrong; the
balloon is vaguely
Currently the virtio balloon device, when using the virtio-pci interface
advertises itself with PCI class code MEMORY_RAM. This is wrong; the
balloon is vaguely related to memory, but is nothing like a PCI memory
device in the meaning of the class code, and this code is not required or
suggested
Currently the virtio balloon device, when using the virtio-pci interface
advertises itself with PCI class code MEMORY_RAM. This is wrong; the
balloon is vaguely related to memory, but is nothing like a PCI memory
device in the meaning of the class code, and this code is not required or
suggested
34 matches
Mail list logo
