On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 09:28:26PM -0400, John Snow wrote:
> On 10/28/2014 08:27 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> In the meantime:
> Patches 1, 2, and 6 are fine and should be merged. I have also fixed patch
> 3, but I can submit that by itself a little later.
In case I forgot to reply yesterday, I have
On 10/29/2014 02:28 AM, John Snow wrote:
>
> (1) Update the prepare_buf callback (including the AHCI and BMDMA
> implementations) to return, simply, the number of bytes prepared. For
> AHCI, the largest this can ever be is something like
>
> (2) Update uses of the callback or implementations to
On 10/28/2014 08:27 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Yeah, I was wondering if any commands could have <512 bytes response...
I sort of convinced myself that the answer was no for ATA commands, but
stupidly forgot about packet (SCSI) commands. Their results are
obviously shorter than 512 bytes.
>> Yeah, I was wondering if any commands could have <512 bytes response...
>> I sort of convinced myself that the answer was no for ATA commands, but
>> stupidly forgot about packet (SCSI) commands. Their results are
>> obviously shorter than 512 bytes.
>
> Are you referencing the sglist under
On 10/28/2014 08:03 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 10/29/2014 12:54 AM, John Snow wrote:
On 10/28/2014 09:51 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 06:55:45PM -0400, John Snow wrote:
Based off of feedback from the RFC of the same name,
this series batches together a group of fix
On 10/29/2014 12:54 AM, John Snow wrote:
>
>
> On 10/28/2014 09:51 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 06:55:45PM -0400, John Snow wrote:
>>> Based off of feedback from the RFC of the same name,
>>> this series batches together a group of fixes that
>>> improve the AHCI device
On 10/28/2014 09:51 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 06:55:45PM -0400, John Snow wrote:
Based off of feedback from the RFC of the same name,
this series batches together a group of fixes that
improve the AHCI device to fix a number of bugs.
A number of fixes included in the
On Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 06:55:45PM -0400, John Snow wrote:
> Based off of feedback from the RFC of the same name,
> this series batches together a group of fixes that
> improve the AHCI device to fix a number of bugs.
>
> A number of fixes included in the RFC that provide more
> radical changes ar
On 10/02/2014 12:55 AM, John Snow wrote:
> Based off of feedback from the RFC of the same name,
> this series batches together a group of fixes that
> improve the AHCI device to fix a number of bugs.
>
> A number of fixes included in the RFC that provide more
> radical changes are omitted for now
On Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 06:55:45PM -0400, John Snow wrote:
> Based off of feedback from the RFC of the same name,
> this series batches together a group of fixes that
> improve the AHCI device to fix a number of bugs.
>
> A number of fixes included in the RFC that provide more
> radical changes ar
Ping!
At KVM Forum I had a discussion with (someone, sorry!) that having some
pointers to which specifications to look at here might be helpful, since
some of the fixes were just spec-adherence fixes.
See below, in-line, for some additional notes on how to review these
patches.
On 10/02/20
Based off of feedback from the RFC of the same name,
this series batches together a group of fixes that
improve the AHCI device to fix a number of bugs.
A number of fixes included in the RFC that provide more
radical changes are omitted for now in favor of a smaller,
more easily reviewable set for
12 matches
Mail list logo
