On Sun, 2014-02-23 at 20:32 -0500, Bandan Das wrote:
> "Michael S. Tsirkin" writes:
>
> > On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 07:18:07AM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> >> On Sun, 2014-02-23 at 08:32 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >> > On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 04:28:26PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> >>
"Michael S. Tsirkin" writes:
> On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 07:18:07AM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
>> On Sun, 2014-02-23 at 08:32 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>> > On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 04:28:26PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
>> > > On Thu, 2014-02-20 at 10:12 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 07:18:07AM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Sun, 2014-02-23 at 08:32 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 04:28:26PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2014-02-20 at 10:12 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 03:
On Sun, 2014-02-23 at 08:32 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 04:28:26PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > On Thu, 2014-02-20 at 10:12 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 03:20:54PM -0500, Bandan Das wrote:
> > > > The following patch depends on t
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 04:28:26PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-02-20 at 10:12 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 03:20:54PM -0500, Bandan Das wrote:
> > > The following patch depends on the value of rom_bar to
> > > determine rom blacklist behavior. Existi
On Thu, 2014-02-20 at 10:12 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 03:20:54PM -0500, Bandan Das wrote:
> > The following patch depends on the value of rom_bar to
> > determine rom blacklist behavior. Existing code shouldn't
> > be affected by changing the default value of rom_ba
"Michael S. Tsirkin" writes:
> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 03:20:54PM -0500, Bandan Das wrote:
>> The following patch depends on the value of rom_bar to
>> determine rom blacklist behavior. Existing code shouldn't
>> be affected by changing the default value of rom_bar since
>> all relevant decisions
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 01:36:45PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-02-19 at 15:20 -0500, Bandan Das wrote:
> > The following patch depends on the value of rom_bar to
> > determine rom blacklist behavior. Existing code shouldn't
> > be affected by changing the default value of rom_bar s
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 03:20:54PM -0500, Bandan Das wrote:
> The following patch depends on the value of rom_bar to
> determine rom blacklist behavior. Existing code shouldn't
> be affected by changing the default value of rom_bar since
> all relevant decisions only rely on whether rom_bar is zero
Alex Williamson writes:
> On Wed, 2014-02-19 at 15:20 -0500, Bandan Das wrote:
>> The following patch depends on the value of rom_bar to
>> determine rom blacklist behavior. Existing code shouldn't
>> be affected by changing the default value of rom_bar since
>> all relevant decisions only rely o
On Wed, 2014-02-19 at 15:20 -0500, Bandan Das wrote:
> The following patch depends on the value of rom_bar to
> determine rom blacklist behavior. Existing code shouldn't
> be affected by changing the default value of rom_bar since
> all relevant decisions only rely on whether rom_bar is zero
> or n
The following patch depends on the value of rom_bar to
determine rom blacklist behavior. Existing code shouldn't
be affected by changing the default value of rom_bar since
all relevant decisions only rely on whether rom_bar is zero
or non-zero.
Signed-off-by: Bandan Das
---
hw/pci/pci.c | 7
12 matches
Mail list logo
