On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 04:34:01AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 28.02.18 at 12:20, wrote:
> > I've been giving some thought to this, and I cannot find a good
> > solution. So far the less worse one would be:
> >
> > +--+ YES +-+
> > |Is broken set?|-->|No a
>>> On 28.02.18 at 12:20, wrote:
> I've been giving some thought to this, and I cannot find a good
> solution. So far the less worse one would be:
>
> +--+ YES +-+
> |Is broken set?|-->|No action|
> +--+ +-+
> |
> |
On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 07:10:51AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 27.02.18 at 12:57, wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 03:01:44AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> >>> On 27.02.18 at 10:21, wrote:
> >> > With the current approach in the unmap case there will be stale
> >> > mappings left behind
>>> On 27.02.18 at 12:57, wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 03:01:44AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >>> On 27.02.18 at 10:21, wrote:
>> > With the current approach in the unmap case there will be stale
>> > mappings left behind.
>> >
>> > I guess it's better then to not modify the memory decoding
On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 03:01:44AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 27.02.18 at 10:21, wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 01:32:24AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> >>> On 26.02.18 at 19:00, wrote:
> >> > On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 04:20:17AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> >> >>> On 23.01.18 at 16:
>>> On 27.02.18 at 10:21, wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 01:32:24AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >>> On 26.02.18 at 19:00, wrote:
>> > On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 04:20:17AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >> >>> On 23.01.18 at 16:07, wrote:
>> >> > +static void maybe_defer_map(struct domain *d, cons
On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 01:32:24AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 26.02.18 at 19:00, wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 04:20:17AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> >>> On 23.01.18 at 16:07, wrote:
> >> > +bool vpci_process_pending(struct vcpu *v)
> >> > +{
> >> > +while ( v->vpci.mem )
> >>
>>> On 26.02.18 at 19:00, wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 04:20:17AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >>> On 23.01.18 at 16:07, wrote:
>> > +bool vpci_process_pending(struct vcpu *v)
>> > +{
>> > +while ( v->vpci.mem )
>> > +{
>> > +struct map_data data = {
>> > +.d = v->
On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 04:20:17AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
> (re-sending with xen-devel re-added; not sure how it got lost)
>
> >>> On 23.01.18 at 16:07, wrote:
> > ---
> > tools/tests/vpci/emul.h | 1 +
> > xen/arch/x86/hvm/ioreq.c | 4 +
>
> Again the Cc to Paul is missing (no matter
(re-sending with xen-devel re-added; not sure how it got lost)
>>> On 23.01.18 at 16:07, wrote:
> ---
> tools/tests/vpci/emul.h | 1 +
> xen/arch/x86/hvm/ioreq.c | 4 +
Again the Cc to Paul is missing (no matter that it's just a tiny change).
> +static int map_range(unsigned long s, unsi
On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 03:07:31PM +, Roger Pau Monne wrote:
> +static void bar_write(const struct pci_dev *pdev, unsigned int reg,
> + uint32_t val, void *data)
> +{
> +struct vpci_bar *bar = data;
> +uint8_t slot = PCI_SLOT(pdev->devfn), func = PCI_FUNC(pdev->devf
11 matches
Mail list logo
