On 09.09.2021 13:30, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote:
> On 09.09.21 13:46, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 09.09.2021 12:03, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote:
>>> On 09.09.21 12:39, Jan Beulich wrote:
And in fact I wonder whether for DomU-s you want to support BAR changes
in the first place while mem
On 09.09.21 13:46, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 09.09.2021 12:03, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote:
>> On 09.09.21 12:39, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 09.09.2021 11:12, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote:
Anyways, I am open to any decision on what would be the right approach
here:
1. Use rang
On 09.09.2021 12:03, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote:
> On 09.09.21 12:39, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 09.09.2021 11:12, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote:
>>> Anyways, I am open to any decision on what would be the right approach here:
>>>
>>> 1. Use range sets per BAR as in the patch
>>>
>>> 2. Remove ran
On 09.09.21 12:39, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 09.09.2021 11:12, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote:
>> Anyways, I am open to any decision on what would be the right approach here:
>>
>> 1. Use range sets per BAR as in the patch
>>
>> 2. Remove range sets completely and have a per-vCPU list with mapping
>>
On 09.09.2021 11:12, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote:
> Anyways, I am open to any decision on what would be the right approach here:
>
> 1. Use range sets per BAR as in the patch
>
> 2. Remove range sets completely and have a per-vCPU list with mapping
>
> data as I described above
>
> 3. Anythin
On 09.09.21 11:24, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 09.09.2021 07:22, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote:
>> On 08.09.21 18:00, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 08.09.2021 16:31, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote:
On 06.09.21 17:47, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 03.09.2021 12:08, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote:
>> F
On 09.09.2021 07:22, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote:
>
> On 08.09.21 18:00, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 08.09.2021 16:31, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote:
>>> On 06.09.21 17:47, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 03.09.2021 12:08, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote:
> From: Oleksandr Andrushchenko
>
> I
On 08.09.21 18:00, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 08.09.2021 16:31, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote:
>> On 06.09.21 17:47, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 03.09.2021 12:08, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote:
From: Oleksandr Andrushchenko
Instead of handling a single range set, that contains all the m
On 08.09.2021 16:31, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote:
>
> On 06.09.21 17:47, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 03.09.2021 12:08, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote:
>>> From: Oleksandr Andrushchenko
>>>
>>> Instead of handling a single range set, that contains all the memory
>>> regions of all the BARs and ROM,
On 06.09.21 17:47, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 03.09.2021 12:08, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote:
>> From: Oleksandr Andrushchenko
>>
>> Instead of handling a single range set, that contains all the memory
>> regions of all the BARs and ROM, have them per BAR.
> Without looking at how you carry out thi
On 03.09.2021 12:08, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote:
> From: Oleksandr Andrushchenko
>
> Instead of handling a single range set, that contains all the memory
> regions of all the BARs and ROM, have them per BAR.
Without looking at how you carry out this change - this look wrong (as
in: wasteful)
From: Oleksandr Andrushchenko
Instead of handling a single range set, that contains all the memory
regions of all the BARs and ROM, have them per BAR.
This is in preparation of making non-identity mappings in p2m for the
MMIOs/ROM.
Signed-off-by: Oleksandr Andrushchenko
---
xen/drivers/vpci/h
12 matches
Mail list logo