> From: Andrew Cooper [mailto:andrew.coop...@citrix.com]
> Sent: Friday, July 17, 2015 11:11 PM
>
> On 17/07/15 15:01, Wei Liu wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 02:43:05PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > On 17.07.15 at 15:21, wrote:
> >>> The major concern seems to be around the PCI allocation
I think Andrew means you (or someone else) improves that algorithm
later. No need to provide a perfect solution next week.
Yes, I understand what he mean. But I still want to further ask if he
have such a good idea right now, maybe we can try to address that
directly :)
Thanks
Tiejun
_
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 11:26:30PM +0800, Chen, Tiejun wrote:
> >The PCI allocation code is in a state, but it was in a similarly bad
> >state before. I agree with Jan's point of the risk that these new
> >changes cause a regression in booting guests, although we can mitigate
> >that somewhat by t
The PCI allocation code is in a state, but it was in a similarly bad
state before. I agree with Jan's point of the risk that these new
changes cause a regression in booting guests, although we can mitigate
that somewhat by testing.
I feel at this point that we shouldn't block the RMRR bugfix on
On 17/07/15 15:01, Wei Liu wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 02:43:05PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 17.07.15 at 15:21, wrote:
>>> The major concern seems to be around the PCI allocation algorithm. Jan
>>> has different opinion from George. George provided a simple solution
>>> that will not
My main disagreement here continues to be that we're talking
about a bug fix, and hence I don't view this as needing a freeze
exception in the first place (at least not at this point in time). Yes,
the bug fix involves adding code that looks like a new feature, but
that happens with bug fixes.
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 02:43:05PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 17.07.15 at 15:21, wrote:
> > The major concern seems to be around the PCI allocation algorithm. Jan
> > has different opinion from George. George provided a simple solution
> > that will not make things worse than before, while
>>> On 17.07.15 at 15:21, wrote:
> The major concern seems to be around the PCI allocation algorithm. Jan
> has different opinion from George. George provided a simple solution
> that will not make things worse than before, while Jan prefers to get
> everything right.
>
> To be fair, the PCI allo
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 10:30:41AM +0100, Wei Liu wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 05:24:55PM +0800, Chen, Tiejun wrote:
> > >>* On hvmloader side, there three patches now:
> > >> patch #5 is reviewed by George and Acked by Jan;
> > >> patch #6 is reviewed just for code implementation but that
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 05:24:55PM +0800, Chen, Tiejun wrote:
> >>* On hvmloader side, there three patches now:
> >> patch #5 is reviewed by George and Acked by Jan;
> >> patch #6 is reviewed just for code implementation but that solution can't
> >>convince all maintainers. Honestly, this is a
* On hvmloader side, there three patches now:
patch #5 is reviewed by George and Acked by Jan;
patch #6 is reviewed just for code implementation but that solution can't
convince all maintainers. Honestly, this is a rare possibility of collision
in real world and the original pci allocation i
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 09:16:08AM +0800, Chen, Tiejun wrote:
> On 2015/7/14 17:29, Wei Liu wrote:
> >On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 09:27:17AM +0800, Chen, Tiejun wrote:
> >>>Please work with maintainers to get those hvmloader patches acked or
> >>>reviewed.
> >>
> >>I will do.
>
> Maybe I need to updat
On 2015/7/14 17:29, Wei Liu wrote:
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 09:27:17AM +0800, Chen, Tiejun wrote:
Please work with maintainers to get those hvmloader patches acked or
reviewed.
I will do.
Maybe I need to update current status today.
I just send out v8:
* All tools comments raised by Jackson
>>> On 14.07.15 at 11:27, wrote:
> Y Y [v7][PATCH 14/16] xen/vtd: enable USB device assignment
> Y Y [v7][PATCH 15/16] xen/vtd: prevent from assign the
> device with
> shared rmrr
And yet again for these two. Please avoid giving a false impres
>>> On 14.07.15 at 11:25, wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-07-14 at 10:18 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>
>> >>> YY [v7][PATCH 14/16] xen/vtd: enable USB device
>> >>> assignment
>
> diffstat:
> xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/dmar.h | 1 -
> xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/iommu.c | 11 ++---
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 09:27:17AM +0800, Chen, Tiejun wrote:
> >Please work with maintainers to get those hvmloader patches acked or
> >reviewed.
>
> I will do.
>
> >
> >>
> >>Note Jackson and Campbell also raised some comments to improve current
> >>codes.
> >>
> >>2. explain why it needs to be
Y Y [v7][PATCH 14/16] xen/vtd: enable USB device assignment
Y Y [v7][PATCH 15/16] xen/vtd: prevent from assign the
device with
shared rmrr
And yet again for these two. Please avoid giving a false impression
But these two patches really won Kevin's Ack,
On Tue, 2015-07-14 at 10:18 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> Y Y [v7][PATCH 14/16] xen/vtd: enable USB device assignment
diffstat:
xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/dmar.h | 1 -
xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/iommu.c | 11 ++-
xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/utils.c | 7 ---
3 fi
>>> On 14.07.15 at 02:26, wrote:
>> > 1. clarify the state of patch series / feature.
>>>
>>> ReviewedAcked RMRR series v7
>>> Y Y [v7][PATCH 01/16] xen: introduce
>>> XENMEM_reserved_device_memory_map
>>> Y Y [v7][PATCH 02/16] xen/vtd: create RMRR mapping
>>
Please work with maintainers to get those hvmloader patches acked or
reviewed.
I will do.
Note Jackson and Campbell also raised some comments to improve current
codes.
2. explain why it needs to be in this release (benefits).
RMRR mechanism was broken for a long time and this makes VM alw
1. clarify the state of patch series / feature.
ReviewedAcked RMRR series v7
Y Y [v7][PATCH 01/16] xen: introduce
XENMEM_reserved_device_memory_map
Y Y [v7][PATCH 02/16] xen/vtd: create RMRR mapping
Y N [v7][PATCH 03/16] xen/p
>>> On 13.07.15 at 08:31, wrote:
> Hi Wei,
>
> Here I'm trying to request the freeze exception for RMRR.
>
> 1. clarify the state of patch series / feature.
>
> Reviewed Acked RMRR series v7
> Y Y [v7][PATCH 01/16] xen: introduce
> XENMEM_reserved_device_memory_map
> Y
On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 02:31:58PM +0800, Chen, Tiejun wrote:
> Hi Wei,
>
> Here I'm trying to request the freeze exception for RMRR.
>
> 1. clarify the state of patch series / feature.
>
> Reviewed Acked RMRR series v7
> Y Y [v7][PATCH 01/16] xen: introduce
> XENMEM_re
>>> On 13.07.15 at 08:31, wrote:
> 3. explain why it doesn't break things (risks).
>
> Our policy makes sure that system will work in the original way by
> default as without the RMRR patches. And especially, this series just
> impacts those platforms which have RMRR.
I think this should read
24 matches
Mail list logo
