Thanks for the testing.
I've formally submitted this as:
https://lore.kernel.org/xen-devel/20250515084123.43289-1-roger@citrix.com/
Functionality wise I think it should be the same as the last patch you
tried. Could you give it a spin and maybe provide a Tested-by if
suitable?
Thanks, Rog
On Mon, May 12, 2025 at 10:55:18AM -0700, Lira, Victor M wrote:
> On 5/12/2025 9:16 AM, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> > Caution: This message originated from an External Source. Use proper
> > caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding.
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 25, 2025 at 09:47:5
On Fri, Apr 25, 2025 at 09:47:57AM -0700, Lira, Victor M wrote:
> I can confirm with the patch the NVME drive can be accessed despite the "not
> mapping BAR" warning from Xen.
> Output log attached.
Thanks a lot for the test, and sorry for the delay in getting back. I
was busy with other stuff an
On Fri, Apr 25, 2025 at 11:19:21AM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 25.04.2025 11:02, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 02:38:29PM -0700, Lira, Victor M wrote:
> >> Hello all,
> >>
> >> Here is the output from Roger's patch.
> >> This is the section of interest:
> >>
> >>> (XEN) [ 7.
On 25.04.2025 11:02, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 02:38:29PM -0700, Lira, Victor M wrote:
>> Hello all,
>>
>> Here is the output from Roger's patch.
>> This is the section of interest:
>>
>>> (XEN) [ 7.547326] d0 has maximum 3328PIRQs
>>> (XEN) [ 7.555644] *** Building a PVH Dom
On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 02:38:29PM -0700, Lira, Victor M wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> Here is the output from Roger's patch.
> This is the section of interest:
>
> > (XEN) [ 7.547326] d0 has maximum 3328PIRQs
> > (XEN) [ 7.555644] *** Building a PVH Dom0 ***
> > (XEN) [ 7.567780] d0: identity mappings
On 2025-04-24 06:48, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 12:15:17PM +0200, Marek Marczykowski-Górecki wrote:
On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 09:59:00AM +0200, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
On Wed, Apr 23, 2025 at 04:51:16PM -0700, Lira, Victor M wrote:
[4.570354] Intel(R) 2.5G Ethernet Linux D
Hello all,
Here is the output from Roger's patch.
This is the section of interest:
(XEN) [ 7.547326] d0 has maximum 3328PIRQs
(XEN) [ 7.555644] *** Building a PVH Dom0 ***
(XEN) [ 7.567780] d0: identity mappings for IOMMU:
(XEN) [ 7.577312] [a0, ff] RW
(XEN) [ 7.586153] [0
On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 12:15:17PM +0200, Marek Marczykowski-Górecki wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 09:59:00AM +0200, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 23, 2025 at 04:51:16PM -0700, Lira, Victor M wrote:
> > > [4.570354] Intel(R) 2.5G Ethernet Linux Driver
> > >
> > > [4.579535] Cop
On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 09:59:00AM +0200, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 23, 2025 at 04:51:16PM -0700, Lira, Victor M wrote:
> > [4.570354] Intel(R) 2.5G Ethernet Linux Driver
> >
> > [4.579535] Copyright(c) 2018 Intel Corporation.
> >
> > [4.588898] sky2: driver version 1.30
>
On Wed, Apr 23, 2025 at 04:51:16PM -0700, Lira, Victor M wrote:
> [4.570354] Intel(R) 2.5G Ethernet Linux Driver
>
> [4.579535] Copyright(c) 2018 Intel Corporation.
>
> [4.588898] sky2: driver version 1.30
>
> (XEN) [ 21.644361] d0v3 unable to fixup memory read from 0xfe91000c size
On Fri, Apr 11, 2025 at 09:45:26AM -0400, Jason Andryuk wrote:
> On 2025-04-11 03:31, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> > Thanks Jason for getting back, I'm intrigued by this issue :).
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 10, 2025 at 04:55:54PM -0400, Jason Andryuk wrote:
> > > On 2025-04-04 06:28, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
>
On 10.04.2025 22:55, Jason Andryuk wrote:
> On 2025-04-04 06:28, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 03, 2025 at 06:01:42PM -0700, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>>> On one Sapphire AMD x86 board, I see this:
>>>
>>>
>>> (XEN) [003943ca6ff2] [f000, f7ff] (reserved)
>>> (XE
On 11.04.2025 09:31, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> Yup, the check is independent, but pf-fixup would create additional
> p2m mappings if required (note this is only available on staging).
It's also in 4.19.2 and on the 4.20 branch. 4.18 is where I couldn't
easily backport it to.
Jan
On 10.04.2025 22:55, Jason Andryuk wrote:
> On 2025-04-04 04:07, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 04.04.2025 03:01, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>>> On one Sapphire AMD x86 board, I see this:
>>>
>>>
>>> (XEN) [003943ca6ff2] [f000, f7ff] (reserved)
>>> (XEN) [0039460886d9] [0
Thanks Jason for getting back, I'm intrigued by this issue :).
On Thu, Apr 10, 2025 at 04:55:54PM -0400, Jason Andryuk wrote:
> On 2025-04-04 06:28, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 03, 2025 at 06:01:42PM -0700, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > > On one Sapphire AMD x86 board, I see this:
> > >
On 2025-04-04 06:28, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
On Thu, Apr 03, 2025 at 06:01:42PM -0700, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On one Sapphire AMD x86 board, I see this:
(XEN) [003943ca6ff2] [f000, f7ff] (reserved)
(XEN) [0039460886d9] [fd00, ] (r
On 2025-04-04 04:07, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 04.04.2025 03:01, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On one Sapphire AMD x86 board, I see this:
(XEN) [003943ca6ff2] [f000, f7ff] (reserved)
(XEN) [0039460886d9] [fd00, ] (reserved)
[...]
(XEN) [
On Thu, Apr 03, 2025 at 06:01:42PM -0700, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On one Sapphire AMD x86 board, I see this:
>
>
> (XEN) [003943ca6ff2] [f000, f7ff] (reserved)
> (XEN) [0039460886d9] [fd00, ] (reserved)
> [...]
> (XEN) [4.61223
On 04.04.2025 03:01, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On one Sapphire AMD x86 board, I see this:
>
>
> (XEN) [003943ca6ff2] [f000, f7ff] (reserved)
> (XEN) [0039460886d9] [fd00, ] (reserved)
> [...]
> (XEN) [4.612235] :02:00.0: not
20 matches
Mail list logo
