On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 11:55:27AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
> On 26.04.2013, at 11:53, Gleb Natapov wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 01:59:20PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> >> On 04/25/2013 01:22:04 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 11:51:08AM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
On 26.04.2013, at 11:53, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 01:59:20PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
>> On 04/25/2013 01:22:04 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
>>> On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 11:51:08AM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
On 04/25/2013 05:47:39 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
> On 25.04.
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 01:59:20PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> On 04/25/2013 01:22:04 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 11:51:08AM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> >> On 04/25/2013 05:47:39 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
> >> >
> >> >On 25.04.2013, at 11:43, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>>
On 04/25/2013 01:22:04 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 11:51:08AM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> On 04/25/2013 05:47:39 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
> >
> >On 25.04.2013, at 11:43, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >
> >>> +void kvm_device_put(struct kvm_device *dev)
> >>> +{
> >>> + if (atomic_
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 11:51:08AM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> On 04/25/2013 05:47:39 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
> >
> >On 25.04.2013, at 11:43, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >
> >>> +void kvm_device_put(struct kvm_device *dev)
> >>> +{
> >>> + if (atomic_dec_and_test(&dev->users))
> >>> + dev->ops->
On 04/25/2013 05:47:39 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 25.04.2013, at 11:43, Gleb Natapov wrote:
>> +void kvm_device_put(struct kvm_device *dev)
>> +{
>> + if (atomic_dec_and_test(&dev->users))
>> + dev->ops->destroy(dev);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int kvm_device_release(struct inode
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 03:45:14PM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
> >>> Please move struct definitions and KVM_CREATE_DEVICE_TEST define out
> >>> from ioctl definition block.
> >>
> >> Let me change that in my tree...
> >>
> > So are you sending this via your tree and I should not apply it directl
On 25.04.2013, at 14:07, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 12:47:39PM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>
>> On 25.04.2013, at 11:43, Gleb Natapov wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 07:08:42PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
Currently, devices that are emulated inside KVM are configure
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 12:47:39PM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
> On 25.04.2013, at 11:43, Gleb Natapov wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 07:08:42PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> >> Currently, devices that are emulated inside KVM are configured in a
> >> hardcoded manner based on an assumption
On 25.04.2013, at 11:43, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 07:08:42PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
>> Currently, devices that are emulated inside KVM are configured in a
>> hardcoded manner based on an assumption that any given architecture
>> only has one way to do it. If there's any ne
On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 07:08:42PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> Currently, devices that are emulated inside KVM are configured in a
> hardcoded manner based on an assumption that any given architecture
> only has one way to do it. If there's any need to access device state,
> it is done through infl
11 matches
Mail list logo