On 18.06.2018 18:35, Ahmed Soliman wrote:
> Shortly after I sent the first email, we found that there is another
> way to achieve this kind of communication, via KVM Hypercalls, I think
> they are underutilised in kvm, but they exist.
>
> We also found that they are architecture dependent, but
Shortly after I sent the first email, we found that there is another
way to achieve this kind of communication, via KVM Hypercalls, I think
they are underutilised in kvm, but they exist.
We also found that they are architecture dependent, but the advantage
is that one doesn't need to create
On Fri, 15 Jun 2018 15:31:43 +0300
"Michael S. Tsirkin" wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 11:32:42AM +0200, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > On Fri, 15 Jun 2018 05:34:24 +0300
> > "Michael S. Tsirkin" wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 12:02:31PM +0200, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> >
> > > > > >
On 16.06.2018 13:49, Ahmed Soliman wrote:
> Following up on these threads:
> - https://marc.info/?l=kvm=151929803301378=2
> - http://www.openwall.com/lists/kernel-hardening/2018/02/22/18
>
> I lost the original emails so I couldn't reply to them, and also sorry
> for being late, it was the end of
On Monday, June 18, 2018 10:29 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 16, 2018 at 01:09:44AM +, Wang, Wei W wrote:
> > Not necessarily, I think. We have min(4m_page_blocks / 512, 1024) above,
> so the maximum memory that can be reported is 2TB. For larger guests, e.g.
> 4TB, the
Matthew,
>> Since most of the changes are in scsi or target, should I take this
>> series through my tree?
>
> I'd welcome that. Nick seems to be inactive as target maintainer;
> his tree on kernel.org hasn't seen any updates in five months.
Applied to 4.19/scsi-queue, thanks!
--
Martin K.
On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 01:06:48AM +, Wang, Wei W wrote:
> On Monday, June 18, 2018 10:29 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 16, 2018 at 01:09:44AM +, Wang, Wei W wrote:
> > > Not necessarily, I think. We have min(4m_page_blocks / 512, 1024) above,
> > so the maximum memory that
