On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 01:46:22PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
>On Wed, 2013-03-20 at 20:31 +0100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>> On Wed, 2013-03-20 at 12:48 -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
.../...
>> As for EEH, I will let Gavin describe in more details what he is doing,
>> though I wouldn't b
On Wed, 2013-03-20 at 20:31 +0100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-03-20 at 12:48 -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > Perhaps my problem is that I don't have a clear picture of where
> > you're
> > going with this like I do for AER. For AER we're starting with
> > notification of an err
On Wed, 2013-03-20 at 12:48 -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> Perhaps my problem is that I don't have a clear picture of where
> you're
> going with this like I do for AER. For AER we're starting with
> notification of an error, from that we build into how to retrieve the
> error information, and fi
On Tue, 2013-03-19 at 05:45 +0100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-03-18 at 22:18 -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > > Yes, EEH firmware call needn't going through VFIO. However, EEH has
> > > very close relationship with PCI and so VFIO-PCI does. Eventually, EEH
> > > has close relatio
On Mon, 2013-03-18 at 22:18 -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > Yes, EEH firmware call needn't going through VFIO. However, EEH has
> > very close relationship with PCI and so VFIO-PCI does. Eventually, EEH
> > has close relationship with VFIO-PCI :-)
>
> Is there some plan to do more with EEH throu
On Tue, 2013-03-19 at 11:24 +0800, Gavin Shan wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 03:01:14PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> >On Sat, 2013-03-16 at 06:37 +0100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> >> On Sat, 2013-03-16 at 09:34 +0800, Gavin Shan wrote:
> >> > >Could you explain further how this will be us
On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 03:01:14PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
>On Sat, 2013-03-16 at 06:37 +0100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>> On Sat, 2013-03-16 at 09:34 +0800, Gavin Shan wrote:
>> > >Could you explain further how this will be used? How the device is
>> > >exposed to a guest is entirely a
On Sat, 2013-03-16 at 06:37 +0100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Sat, 2013-03-16 at 09:34 +0800, Gavin Shan wrote:
> > >Could you explain further how this will be used? How the device is
> > >exposed to a guest is entirely a userspace construct, so why does vfio
> > >need to know or care abou
On Sat, 2013-03-16 at 09:34 +0800, Gavin Shan wrote:
> >Could you explain further how this will be used? How the device is
> >exposed to a guest is entirely a userspace construct, so why does vfio
> >need to know or care about this? I had assumed for AER that QEMU would
> >do the translation from
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 01:29:00PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
>On Fri, 2013-03-15 at 15:26 +0800, Gavin Shan wrote:
>> The address (domain/bus/slot/function) of the passed PCI device
>> looks quite different from perspective of host and guest. Some
>> architectures like PPC need to setup the map
On Fri, 2013-03-15 at 15:26 +0800, Gavin Shan wrote:
> The address (domain/bus/slot/function) of the passed PCI device
> looks quite different from perspective of host and guest. Some
> architectures like PPC need to setup the mapping in host. The patch
> introduces additional VFIO device IOCTL com
11 matches
Mail list logo
