On 17/11/2016 00:00, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>> When we want to enable ACPI vcpu hotplug for HVM guests,
What do you mean by "when"? We *are* doing ACPI hotplug for HVM guests,
aren't we?
>>> Are we? If so, how?
>>>
>>> I don't see any toolstack or qemu code able to cope with APCI CPU
>
> When we want to enable ACPI vcpu hotplug for HVM guests,
>>> What do you mean by "when"? We *are* doing ACPI hotplug for HVM guests,
>>> aren't we?
>> Are we? If so, how?
>>
>> I don't see any toolstack or qemu code able to cope with APCI CPU
>> hotplug. I can definitely see ACPI PCI
>>> On 15.11.16 at 20:19, wrote:
> On 15/11/16 15:56, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 15.11.16 at 16:44, wrote:
>>> On 11/15/2016 10:17 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> The other option was XEN_X86_EMU_ACPI. Would it be better?
As that's a
On 11/15/2016 03:07 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 15/11/16 19:38, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>> On 11/15/2016 02:19 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>> On 15/11/16 15:56, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 15.11.16 at 16:44, wrote:
> On 11/15/2016 10:17 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 15/11/16 19:38, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> On 11/15/2016 02:19 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> On 15/11/16 15:56, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 15.11.16 at 16:44, wrote:
On 11/15/2016 10:17 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> The other option was XEN_X86_EMU_ACPI. Would it
On 11/15/2016 02:19 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 15/11/16 15:56, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 15.11.16 at 16:44, wrote:
>>> On 11/15/2016 10:17 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> The other option was XEN_X86_EMU_ACPI. Would it be better?
As that's a little too wide (and
On 15/11/16 15:56, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 15.11.16 at 16:44, wrote:
>> On 11/15/2016 10:17 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
The other option was XEN_X86_EMU_ACPI. Would it be better?
>>> As that's a little too wide (and I think someone else had also
>>> disliked it for
>>> On 15.11.16 at 16:44, wrote:
> On 11/15/2016 10:17 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> The other option was XEN_X86_EMU_ACPI. Would it be better?
>> As that's a little too wide (and I think someone else had also
>> disliked it for that reason), how about XEN_X86_EMU_ACPI_FF
On 11/15/2016 10:17 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> The other option was XEN_X86_EMU_ACPI. Would it be better?
> As that's a little too wide (and I think someone else had also
> disliked it for that reason), how about XEN_X86_EMU_ACPI_FF
> (for "fixed features"), or if that's still too wide, break
>>> On 15.11.16 at 15:55, wrote:
> On 11/15/2016 04:24 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 09.11.16 at 15:39, wrote:
>>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/ioreq.c
>>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/ioreq.c
>>> @@ -1383,6 +1383,78 @@ static int
On 11/15/2016 04:24 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 09.11.16 at 15:39, wrote:
>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/ioreq.c
>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/ioreq.c
>> @@ -1383,6 +1383,78 @@ static int hvm_access_cf8(static int acpi_ioaccess(
>> int dir, unsigned int port, unsigned
>>> On 09.11.16 at 15:39, wrote:
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/ioreq.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/ioreq.c
> @@ -1383,6 +1383,78 @@ static int hvm_access_cf8(static int acpi_ioaccess(
> int dir, unsigned int port, unsigned int bytes, uint32_t *val)
> {
> +unsigned
On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 09:39:56AM -0500, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Boris Ostrovsky
> ---
> CC: Paul Durrant
> ---
> Changes in v2:
> * Use 'true/false' values for bools
>
>
> xen/arch/x86/hvm/ioreq.c | 72
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Boris Ostrovsky [mailto:boris.ostrov...@oracle.com]
> Sent: 09 November 2016 14:40
> To: xen-devel@lists.xen.org
> Cc: jbeul...@suse.com; Andrew Cooper ;
> Wei Liu ; Ian Jackson ; Roger
>
Signed-off-by: Boris Ostrovsky
---
CC: Paul Durrant
---
Changes in v2:
* Use 'true/false' values for bools
xen/arch/x86/hvm/ioreq.c | 72
1 file changed, 72 insertions(+)
diff --git
15 matches
Mail list logo