On 12/20/2011 04:08 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 12/20/2011 12:03 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 12/20/2011 04:46 AM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
I would hope that you would agree that when designing the device
model, we should aim to do what makes sense independent of migration.
If we cannot achieve a certa
On 12/20/2011 12:03 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 12/20/2011 04:46 AM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> >
> > I would hope that you would agree that when designing the device
> > model, we should aim to do what makes sense independent of migration.
> > If we cannot achieve a certain feature with migration gi
On 12/20/2011 04:46 AM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>
> I would hope that you would agree that when designing the device
> model, we should aim to do what makes sense independent of migration.
> If we cannot achieve a certain feature with migration given the
> logical modeling of devices, it probably s
On 12/20/2011 02:42 AM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>> Look down http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.emulators.kvm.devel/82598
>> for the discussion of that model.
>
>
> I have. I don't understand the rationale for jumping through hoops here.
>
> There seems to be an assertion that migrating from in-ker
On 2011-12-20 04:10, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 12/19/2011 08:46 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>> On 12/19/2011 07:19 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>> On 2011-12-20 02:08, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>> Here's how we solve this problem:
>>
>> 1) In the short term, advertise both devices as having the same
>> VMs
On 12/19/2011 08:46 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 12/19/2011 07:19 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-12-20 02:08, Anthony Liguori wrote:
Here's how we solve this problem:
1) In the short term, advertise both devices as having the same VMstate name.
Since we don't register until the device is insta
On 12/19/2011 07:19 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-12-20 02:08, Anthony Liguori wrote:
There's lot of inconsistency in qdev already today so adding a little
more isn't the end of the world. We're going to need to eventually have
this debate soon so it's up to you whether you want to just get thi
On 2011-12-20 02:19, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2011-12-20 02:08, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>> On 12/19/2011 06:37 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>> On 2011-12-20 01:32, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 12/19/2011 05:49 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2011-12-19 23:24, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>> On 12/19/2011 03:
On 2011-12-20 02:08, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 12/19/2011 06:37 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> On 2011-12-20 01:32, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>>> On 12/19/2011 05:49 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-12-19 23:24, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 12/19/2011 03:17 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
>>
>> An
On 12/19/2011 06:37 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-12-20 01:32, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 12/19/2011 05:49 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-12-19 23:24, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 12/19/2011 03:17 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
Anthony,
Can you please review&ACK?
You could even apply directly b
On 12/19/2011 06:37 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-12-20 01:32, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 12/19/2011 05:49 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-12-19 23:24, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 12/19/2011 03:17 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
Anthony,
Can you please review&ACK?
You could even apply directly b
On 2011-12-20 01:32, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 12/19/2011 05:49 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> On 2011-12-19 23:24, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>>> On 12/19/2011 03:17 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
Anthony,
Can you please review& ACK?
You could even apply directly but well do a
On 12/19/2011 05:49 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-12-19 23:24, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 12/19/2011 03:17 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
Anthony,
Can you please review& ACK?
You could even apply directly but well do a kvm-autotest run through
uq/master. Still, your review is needed.
Overall,
On 2011-12-19 23:24, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 12/19/2011 03:17 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
>>
>> Anthony,
>>
>> Can you please review& ACK?
>>
>> You could even apply directly but well do a kvm-autotest run through
>> uq/master. Still, your review is needed.
>
> Overall, it looks good except fo
On 12/19/2011 03:17 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
Anthony,
Can you please review& ACK?
You could even apply directly but well do a kvm-autotest run through
uq/master. Still, your review is needed.
Overall, it looks good except for the backend/frontend split. This should be
done in terms of q
Anthony,
Can you please review & ACK?
You could even apply directly but well do a kvm-autotest run through
uq/master. Still, your review is needed.
Thanks
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 01:33:15PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Changes in v5:
> - properly introduce apic_report_irq_delivered (instead of
>
Changes in v5:
- properly introduce apic_report_irq_delivered (instead of
apic_set_irq_delivered silently)
- rework apic to kvm core interface according to Blue's suggestion
CC: Lai Jiangshan
Jan Kiszka (16):
msi: Generalize msix_supported to msi_supported
kvm: Move kvmclock into hw/kvm fo
17 matches
Mail list logo
