>June 18, 2015 7:39 PM, <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote: > >>> On 18.06.15 at 13:31, <quan...@intel.com> wrote: > >> On June 18, 2015 5:19 PM, <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote: > >> >>> On 18.06.15 at 10:09, <quan...@intel.com> wrote: > >> > >> >> On 16.06.15 09:59, <mailto:jbeul...@suse.com> wrote: > >> >> >>> On 16.06.15 at 09:59, <yang.z.zh...@intel.com> wrote: > >> >> > Jan Beulich wrote on 2015-06-16: > >> >> >>>>> On 16.06.15 at 05:07, <yang.z.zh...@intel.com> wrote: > >> >> >>> Jan Beulich wrote on 2015-06-15: > >> >> >>>>>>> On 13.06.15 at 16:44, <quan...@intel.com> wrote: > >> >> >>>>>> On 12.06.15 at 14:47, <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote: > >> >> >>>>>>>>> On 12.06.15 at 04:40, <quan...@intel.com> wrote: > >> > > >> >> >
> > I can send out two series of patch: > > 1st: VT-d async invalidation for ATS case. > > 2nd: VT-d async invalidation for non-ATS case. > > > > > > I think the 1st series of patch is high priority, as it is not > > correct to spin 1 second for ATS case. I can implement these source > > code and send out ASAP. > > 2nd series of patch is low priority, as it's optimization. Also I can > > provide a serious of patch to fix it later. > > That's fine as long as the second series won't arrive only months later. > I am starting to implement the 1st series -- VT-d async invalidation for ATS case. Quan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
