On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 08:23:25PM +, KY Srinivasan wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Greg KH [mailto:gre...@suse.de]
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 3:41 PM
To: KY Srinivasan
Cc: linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org; de...@linuxdriverproject.org;
virtualizat...@lists.osdl.org;
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 09:19:45AM -0700, K. Y. Srinivasan wrote:
This patch-set addresses some of the bus/driver model cleanup that
Greg sugested over the last couple of days. In this patch-set we
deal with the following issues:
1) Cleanup unnecessary state in struct hv_device and
-Original Message-
From: Greg KH [mailto:g...@kroah.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 7:29 PM
To: KY Srinivasan
Cc: gre...@suse.de; linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org;
de...@linuxdriverproject.org; virtualizat...@lists.osdl.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/25] Staging: hv: Cleanup vmbus
-Original Message-
From: Greg KH [mailto:g...@kroah.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 6:57 PM
To: KY Srinivasan
Cc: gre...@suse.de; linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org;
de...@linuxdriverproject.org; virtualizat...@lists.osdl.org; Haiyang Zhang;
Abhishek Kane (Mindtree Consulting PVT
-Original Message-
From: Greg KH [mailto:g...@kroah.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 6:51 PM
To: KY Srinivasan
Cc: gre...@suse.de; linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org;
de...@linuxdriverproject.org; virtualizat...@lists.osdl.org; Haiyang Zhang;
Abhishek Kane (Mindtree Consulting PVT
**
CALL FOR PARTICIPATION
==
The 8th IEEE International Conference on Autonomic Computing
Karlsruhe, Germany
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 02:59:27PM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 18:13:34 -0500, Rob Landley rland...@parallels.com
wrote:
From: Rob Landley rland...@parallels.com
Going indirect for only two buffers isn't likely to be a performance win
because the kmalloc/kfree
On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 21:21:59 +0800, Liu Yuan namei.u...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Liu Yuan tailai...@taobao.com
In the function vp_request_msix_vectors(), when
pci_enable_msix() returns 0, there will be
redundant double checks for 'err'. This patch
fixes it to avoid the unnecessary check.
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 01:54:02AM +, KY Srinivasan wrote:
I would prefer that we go through the review process. What is the process for
this review? Is there a time window for people to respond. I am hoping I will
be able
to address all the review comments well in advance of the next
On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 18:13:34 -0500, Rob Landley rland...@parallels.com wrote:
From: Rob Landley rland...@parallels.com
Going indirect for only two buffers isn't likely to be a performance win
because the kmalloc/kfree overhead for the indirect block can't be cheaper
than one extra linked
-Original Message-
From: Christoph Hellwig [mailto:h...@infradead.org]
Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 2:46 AM
To: KY Srinivasan
Cc: Greg KH; gre...@suse.de; linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org;
de...@linuxdriverproject.org; virtualizat...@lists.osdl.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/25]
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 11:47:03AM +, KY Srinivasan wrote:
On the host side, Windows emulates the standard PC hardware
to permit hosting of fully virtualized operating systems.
To enhance disk I/O performance, we support a virtual block driver.
This block driver currently handles disks
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 02:31:18AM +, KY Srinivasan wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Greg KH [mailto:g...@kroah.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 6:46 PM
To: KY Srinivasan
Cc: gre...@suse.de; linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org;
de...@linuxdriverproject.org;
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 01:54:02AM +, KY Srinivasan wrote:
After that, do you want another round of review of the code, or do
you have more things you want to send in (like the name[64] removal?)
I would prefer that we go through the review process. What is the process for
this
14 matches
Mail list logo
