On Wed, 2012-02-01 at 17:18 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 06:55:40AM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > On Wed, 2012-02-01 at 11:03 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> > > On 01/31/2012 11:14 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 02:08:38PM -0700, Alex Wil
On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 06:55:40AM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-02-01 at 11:03 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> > On 01/31/2012 11:14 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 02:08:38PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 2012-01-31 at 15:33 +0200, Avi Kivity
On Wed, 2012-02-01 at 11:03 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 01/31/2012 11:14 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 02:08:38PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2012-01-31 at 15:33 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> > > > On 01/31/2012 03:21 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> > > > > On 201
On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 11:03:25AM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 01/31/2012 11:14 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 02:08:38PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2012-01-31 at 15:33 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> > > > On 01/31/2012 03:21 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> > > > >
On 01/31/2012 11:14 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 02:08:38PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > On Tue, 2012-01-31 at 15:33 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> > > On 01/31/2012 03:21 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> > > > On 2012-01-31 14:10, Avi Kivity wrote:
> > > > > On 01/31/2012 02:57
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 02:08:38PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-01-31 at 15:33 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> > On 01/31/2012 03:21 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> > > On 2012-01-31 14:10, Avi Kivity wrote:
> > > > On 01/31/2012 02:57 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> > > > Seems fine, but do we real
On Tue, 2012-01-31 at 15:33 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 01/31/2012 03:21 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> > On 2012-01-31 14:10, Avi Kivity wrote:
> > > On 01/31/2012 02:57 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> > > Seems fine, but do we really need the option? If it doesn't work we
> > > should treat it as an
On 01/31/2012 03:21 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2012-01-31 14:10, Avi Kivity wrote:
> > On 01/31/2012 02:57 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> > Seems fine, but do we really need the option? If it doesn't work we
> > should treat it as an ordinary but and fix it.
>
> So far it's against the
On 2012-01-31 14:10, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 01/31/2012 02:57 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Seems fine, but do we really need the option? If it doesn't work we
> should treat it as an ordinary but and fix it.
So far it's against the architecture of the emulated system: our current
On 01/31/2012 02:57 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >>> Seems fine, but do we really need the option? If it doesn't work we
> >>> should treat it as an ordinary but and fix it.
> >>
> >> So far it's against the architecture of the emulated system: our current
> >> chipset predates 64 bit PCI.
> >>
> >
>
On 2012-01-31 13:51, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 01/31/2012 02:45 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> On 2012-01-31 13:40, Avi Kivity wrote:
>>> On 01/28/2012 04:21 PM, Alex Williamson wrote:
To date we've only exposed BARs as 32bit even if the device
physically supports 64bit BARs. Enable 64bit BARs to
On 01/31/2012 02:45 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2012-01-31 13:40, Avi Kivity wrote:
> > On 01/28/2012 04:21 PM, Alex Williamson wrote:
> >> To date we've only exposed BARs as 32bit even if the device
> >> physically supports 64bit BARs. Enable 64bit BARs to be
> >> exposed as such in the guest, whi
On 2012-01-31 13:40, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 01/28/2012 04:21 PM, Alex Williamson wrote:
>> To date we've only exposed BARs as 32bit even if the device
>> physically supports 64bit BARs. Enable 64bit BARs to be
>> exposed as such in the guest, which may free up MMIO below
>> 4G should the guest cho
On 01/28/2012 04:21 PM, Alex Williamson wrote:
> To date we've only exposed BARs as 32bit even if the device
> physically supports 64bit BARs. Enable 64bit BARs to be
> exposed as such in the guest, which may free up MMIO below
> 4G should the guest choose to use it.
>
> This adds a new mem64= opt
To date we've only exposed BARs as 32bit even if the device
physically supports 64bit BARs. Enable 64bit BARs to be
exposed as such in the guest, which may free up MMIO below
4G should the guest choose to use it.
This adds a new mem64= option to pci-assign, with the
default being off for testing
15 matches
Mail list logo
