Hi,
On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 03:25:00PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 09:35:40AM +0200, Sander Eikelenboom wrote:
> > On 22/09/17 04:09, Christopher Clark wrote:
> > > On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 1:27 PM, Sander Eikelenboom
> > > wrote:
> > >>
> >
>>> On 25.09.17 at 18:10, wrote:
> I tried the various device reset patches posted on this discussion
> (do_flr, Christopher's "more thorough" reset_device) but without luck.
>
> After reset, I could notice that lspci shows the device's Masked
> state has
Hi Jan and al,
- On Sep 21, 2017, at 9:12 AM, Jan Beulich jbeul...@suse.com wrote:
> And did you verify that the OS actually makes an attempt to clear
> this mask-all flag? If such an attempt doesn't have the intended
> effect, finding the problem location in the code and sending a
> fix
>
> [snip]
>
>
> > So i think David's NACK was mostly for the patchset having some hackish
> cosmetics.
>
> He didn't like 'do_flr' which made sense as the patchset did not do FLR.
> It made a bus-reset
> for more than one device (if those devices were assigned to pciback).
>
When I first
On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 09:35:40AM +0200, Sander Eikelenboom wrote:
> - Not an issue back then when the patch was made, but as the question earlier
> to Roger,
> the hypervisor seems to grow more interference with pci devices with the
> PVH dom0 work.
> If and hoow does that relate to
On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 09:35:40AM +0200, Sander Eikelenboom wrote:
> On 22/09/17 04:09, Christopher Clark wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 1:27 PM, Sander Eikelenboom
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, September 21, 2017, 10:39:52 AM, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Wed,
On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 10:27:01PM +0200, Sander Eikelenboom wrote:
> Roger:
> I follow your PVH (dom0) patches shallowly, from my understanding it will
> result
> in Xen having more inteference with the handling of PCI devices ?
Yes, that's correct.
> If that's correct will this also impact
On 22/09/17 04:09, Christopher Clark wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 1:27 PM, Sander Eikelenboom
> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, September 21, 2017, 10:39:52 AM, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 03:50:35PM -0400, Jérôme Oufella wrote:
I'm using PCI
Hi,
On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 07:09:12PM -0700, Christopher Clark wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 1:27 PM, Sander Eikelenboom
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, September 21, 2017, 10:39:52 AM, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 03:50:35PM -0400, Jérôme Oufella
On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 1:27 PM, Sander Eikelenboom
wrote:
>
> On Thu, September 21, 2017, 10:39:52 AM, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 03:50:35PM -0400, Jérôme Oufella wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm using PCI pass-through to map a PCIe (intel i210) controller into
Thursday, September 21, 2017, 10:39:52 AM, you wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 03:50:35PM -0400, Jérôme Oufella wrote:
>> Hi Xen-devel,
>>
>> I'm using PCI pass-through to map a PCIe (intel i210) controller into
>> a HVM domain. The system uses xen-pciback to hide the appropriate PCI
>>
>>> On 20.09.17 at 21:50, wrote:
> - On Dom0, 'lspci -vv' on that PCIe device between the "working" and
> the "muted interrupts" states, I noted a difference between the
> MSI-X caps:
>
> - Capabilities: [70] MSI-X: Enable- Count=5 Masked- <-- IRQs will
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 03:50:35PM -0400, Jérôme Oufella wrote:
> Hi Xen-devel,
>
> I'm using PCI pass-through to map a PCIe (intel i210) controller into
> a HVM domain. The system uses xen-pciback to hide the appropriate PCI
> device from Dom0.
>
> When creating the HVM domain after an
Hi Xen-devel,
I'm using PCI pass-through to map a PCIe (intel i210) controller into
a HVM domain. The system uses xen-pciback to hide the appropriate PCI
device from Dom0.
When creating the HVM domain after an hypervisor cold boot, the HVM
domain can access and use the PCIe controller
14 matches
Mail list logo