The old documentation is left over from when we used a structure with
strategy pointers.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell
---
include/linux/virtio.h | 130 -
1 file changed, 87 insertions(+), 43 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/virtio.h b/incl
A virtio driver does virtqueue_add_buf() multiple times before finally
calling virtqueue_kick(); previously we only exposed the added buffers
in the virtqueue_kick() call. This means we don't need a memory
barrier in virtqueue_add_buf(), but it reduces concurrency as the
device (ie. host) can't se
Since we know vq->vring.num is a power of 2, modulus is lazy (it's asserted
in vring_new_virtqueue()).
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell
---
drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c | 10 ++
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/lguest/boot.c b/arch/x86/lguest/boot.c
--
Remove wrapper functions. This makes the allocation type explicit in
all callers; I used GPF_KERNEL where it seemed obvious, left it at
GFP_ATOMIC otherwise.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell
diff --git a/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c b/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c
--- a/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c
+++ b/d
The old documentation is left over from when we used a structure with
strategy pointers.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell
---
include/linux/virtio.h | 130 -
1 file changed, 87 insertions(+), 43 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/virtio.h b/incl
Based on patch by Christoph for virtio_blk speedup:
Split virtqueue_kick to be able to do the actual notification
outside the lock protecting the virtqueue. This patch was
originally done by Stefan Hajnoczi, but I can't find the
original one anymore and had to recr
On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 06:12:49PM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
> The old documentation is left over from when we used a structure with
> strategy pointers.
Looks good,
Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig
___
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.
On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 06:12:50PM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
> Remove wrapper functions. This makes the allocation type explicit in
> all callers; I used GPF_KERNEL where it seemed obvious, left it at
> GFP_ATOMIC otherwise.
Looks good,
Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig
__
On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 06:12:51PM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
> Based on patch by Christoph for virtio_blk speedup:
Please credit it to Stefan - he also sent a pointer to his original
version in reply to the previous thread.
Also shouldn't virtqueue_kick have kerneldoc comments?
I also notices
Trivial changes to remove forgotten junk, format comments, and correct names.
Cc: Rusty Russell
Cc: "Michael S. Tsirkin"
Cc: virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin
---
drivers/virtio/virtio_balloon.c |6 +++---
1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
On Thu, 2011-11-03 at 12:28 +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Nov 2011 20:49:27 +0200, Sasha Levin
> wrote:
> > This is a proposal for a new layout of the virtio-pci config space.
> >
> > We will separate the current configuration into two: A virtio-pci common
> > configuration and a dev
On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 02:19:03AM +0200, Sasha Levin wrote:
> Hi Michael,
>
> On Thu, 2011-11-03 at 01:31 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > Add a flexible mechanism to specify virtio configuration layout, using
> > pci vendor-specific capability. A separate capability is used for each
> > of
On 11/03/2011 01:31 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> Add a flexible mechanism to specify virtio configuration layout, using
> pci vendor-specific capability. A separate capability is used for each
> of common, device specific and data-path accesses.
>
>
How about posting the spec change instead of
On Thu, 3 Nov 2011 09:51:15 +0200, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 9:42 AM, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > Since we know vq->vring.num is a power of 2, modulus is lazy (it's asserted
> > in vring_new_virtqueue()).
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell
> > ---
> > drivers/virtio/virtio_rin
On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 12:28:46PM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
> 3) If we're changing the queue layout, it's a chance to fix a
>longstanding bug: let the guest notify the host of preferred
>queue size and alignment.
With device config split from the common one, we can
just tuck new fields
On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 10:20:04AM +0200, Sasha Levin wrote:
> Trivial changes to remove forgotten junk, format comments, and correct names.
>
> Cc: Rusty Russell
> Cc: "Michael S. Tsirkin"
> Cc: virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin
Acked-by: Michael S. Tsirki
On Thu, 2011-11-03 at 12:33 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 02:19:03AM +0200, Sasha Levin wrote:
> > Hi Michael,
> >
> > On Thu, 2011-11-03 at 01:31 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > Add a flexible mechanism to specify virtio configuration layout, using
> > > pci ve
On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 01:09:51PM +0200, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-11-03 at 12:33 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 02:19:03AM +0200, Sasha Levin wrote:
> > > Hi Michael,
> > >
> > > On Thu, 2011-11-03 at 01:31 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > Add a flex
On 2011-11-02 21:11, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> MSIX spec requires that device can be operated with
> all vectors masked, by polling pending bits.
> Add APIs to recall an msix notification, and make polling
> mode possible in virtio-pci by clearing the
> pending bits and setting ISR appropriately
On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 12:42:55PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2011-11-02 21:11, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > MSIX spec requires that device can be operated with
> > all vectors masked, by polling pending bits.
> > Add APIs to recall an msix notification, and make polling
> > mode possible in vi
On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 12:37:04PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 11/03/2011 01:31 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > Add a flexible mechanism to specify virtio configuration layout, using
> > pci vendor-specific capability. A separate capability is used for each
> > of common, device specific and d
On 02/11/11 23:02, Rusty Russell wrote:
> Ben, Christian, can you figure out what's going on? Is it time for a
> complete rewrite?
You are talking about hvc console? Yes it has so many users that it is now
something like a console/tty layer extension, but it was never designed to be
one.
I thin
On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 10:33:23AM +0200, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-11-03 at 12:28 +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > On Wed, 02 Nov 2011 20:49:27 +0200, Sasha Levin
> > wrote:
> > > This is a proposal for a new layout of the virtio-pci config space.
> > >
> > > We will separate the curren
On Thu, 2011-11-03 at 14:46 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 10:33:23AM +0200, Sasha Levin wrote:
> > On Thu, 2011-11-03 at 12:28 +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > > On Wed, 02 Nov 2011 20:49:27 +0200, Sasha Levin
> > > wrote:
> > > > This is a proposal for a new layout o
> 2. Move device specific features into the device specific region.
> Currently the features field is a mix between virtio-pci and device
> specific features.
A single feature field with bits partitioned to transport
specific and device specific fields is a generic virtio
thing. So there's relativ
On 11/03/2011 02:11 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 12:37:04PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> > On 11/03/2011 01:31 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > Add a flexible mechanism to specify virtio configuration layout, using
> > > pci vendor-specific capability. A separate capabi
On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 03:19:01PM +0200, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-11-03 at 14:46 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 10:33:23AM +0200, Sasha Levin wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2011-11-03 at 12:28 +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 02 Nov 2011 20:49:27 +0200, Sas
On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 03:37:42PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 11/03/2011 02:11 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 12:37:04PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> > > On 11/03/2011 01:31 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > Add a flexible mechanism to specify virtio configuration la
On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 01:38:15PM +0100, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> On 02/11/11 23:02, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > Ben, Christian, can you figure out what's going on? Is it time for a
> > complete rewrite?
>
> You are talking about hvc console? Yes it has so many users that it is now
> somethin
On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 08:49:31AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 11/03/2011 08:45 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> >On 11/03/2011 03:38 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> >>>
> We could use a better agreement on the processor for making virtio
> changes. Should it go (1) virtio spec (2) kernel (3) qe
On 11/03/2011 09:31 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 08:49:31AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 11/03/2011 08:45 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 11/03/2011 03:38 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
We could use a better agreement on the processor for making virtio
changes. Should it go
On 11/03/2011 04:37 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>
>> 2. Proposed spec patch, kernel change, qemu change
>> 3. Buy-ins from spec maintainer, kernel driver maintainer, qemu
>> device
>> maintainer (only regarding the ABI, not the code)
>
> I don't think this is how it's working
On Thu, 3 Nov 2011 01:31:11 +0200
"Michael S. Tsirkin" wrote:
> Add a flexible mechanism to specify virtio configuration layout, using
> pci vendor-specific capability. A separate capability is used for each
> of common, device specific and data-path accesses.
>
> Warning: compiled only.
> This
On 2011-11-03 13:07, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 12:42:55PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> On 2011-11-02 21:11, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>> MSIX spec requires that device can be operated with
>>> all vectors masked, by polling pending bits.
>>> Add APIs to recall an msix noti
34 matches
Mail list logo
