On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 07:24:47PM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
> Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>
> > I guess this means you'll have to find a device with a sub-page
> > BAR to test this on, instead of hacking driver for a device with
> > full page BAR. Did anyone ever try doing passthrough on an
> > e
Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> I guess this means you'll have to find a device with a sub-page BAR
> to test this on, instead of hacking driver for a device with full
> page BAR. Did anyone ever try doing passthrough on an emulated
> device in nested virt?
>
We don't emulate an IOMMU, so no.
Ale
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 07:16:13PM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
> Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 12:06:25AM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
> >
> >> While trying to get device passthrough working with an emulex hba, kvm
> >> refused to pass it through because it has a BAR of
Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 12:06:25AM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
>> While trying to get device passthrough working with an emulex hba, kvm
>> refused to pass it through because it has a BAR of 256 bytes:
>>
>> Region 0: Memory at d210 (64-bit, non-prefetc
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 12:06:25AM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
> While trying to get device passthrough working with an emulex hba, kvm
> refused to pass it through because it has a BAR of 256 bytes:
>
> Region 0: Memory at d210 (64-bit, non-prefetchable) [size=4K]
> Region 2:
While trying to get device passthrough working with an emulex hba, kvm
refused to pass it through because it has a BAR of 256 bytes:
Region 0: Memory at d210 (64-bit, non-prefetchable) [size=4K]
Region 2: Memory at d2101000 (64-bit, non-prefetchable) [size=256]
Region 4
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 01:21:40PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 12:09:13PM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
> >
> > On 10.12.2009, at 11:56, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 12:37:37PM +0200, Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote:
> > >> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 a
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 12:34:38PM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
> On 10.12.2009, at 12:28, Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 12:56:56PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >
> >>> mmio and pio are easy, DMA you'd need an IOMMU for security, or
> >>> whatever uio does just for
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 01:28:49PM +0200, Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 12:56:56PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>
> > > mmio and pio are easy, DMA you'd need an IOMMU for security, or
> > > whatever uio does just for translation,
> >
> > uio currently does not support DMA,
On 10.12.2009, at 12:28, Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 12:56:56PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>
>>> mmio and pio are easy, DMA you'd need an IOMMU for security, or
>>> whatever uio does just for translation,
>>
>> uio currently does not support DMA, but I plan to fix thi
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 12:56:56PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > mmio and pio are easy, DMA you'd need an IOMMU for security, or
> > whatever uio does just for translation,
>
> uio currently does not support DMA, but I plan to fix this
With or without an IOMMU?
> > and interrupts you pro
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 12:09:13PM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
> On 10.12.2009, at 11:56, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 12:37:37PM +0200, Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote:
> >> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 11:31:01AM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
> >>
> What do you have in mind
On 10.12.2009, at 11:56, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 12:37:37PM +0200, Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 11:31:01AM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>
What do you have in mind for such a rewrite?
>>>
>>> I'd like to see it more well-abstracted and versa
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 12:37:37PM +0200, Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 11:31:01AM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
> > > What do you have in mind for such a rewrite?
> >
> > I'd like to see it more well-abstracted and versatile. I don't see
> > an obvious reason why we shouldn't
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 11:31:54AM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
> On 10.12.2009, at 11:27, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 11:08:58AM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
> >>
> >> On 10.12.2009, at 10:52, Alexander Graf wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> On 10.12.2009, at 10:43, Michae
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 11:31:01AM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
> > What do you have in mind for such a rewrite?
>
> I'd like to see it more well-abstracted and versatile. I don't see
> an obvious reason why we shouldn't be able to use a physical device
> in a TCG target :-).
mmio and pio are ea
On 12/09/2009 11:06 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
Am 09.12.2009 um 21:49 schrieb "Michael S. Tsirkin" :
On Wed, Dec 09, 2009 at 06:38:54PM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
While trying to get device passthrough working with an emulex hba, kvm
refused to pass it through because it has a BAR of 256 byt
On 10.12.2009, at 11:27, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 11:08:58AM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>
>> On 10.12.2009, at 10:52, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 10.12.2009, at 10:43, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>>
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 07:16:04AM +0200, Muli Ben-Y
On 10.12.2009, at 11:23, Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 10:52:46AM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
>> Either way, FWIW the device assignment stuff needs to be completely
>> rewritten for qemu upstream anyways. So while it's good to collect
>> ideas for now, let's not too put too
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 11:08:58AM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
> On 10.12.2009, at 10:52, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
> >
> > On 10.12.2009, at 10:43, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 07:16:04AM +0200, Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Dec 09, 2009 at 06:38:54PM +010
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 10:52:46AM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
> Either way, FWIW the device assignment stuff needs to be completely
> rewritten for qemu upstream anyways. So while it's good to collect
> ideas for now, let's not too put too much effort code-wise into the
> current code (unless it
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 10:35:41AM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
> That's exactly what this patch does. It only allows access to the
> region defined in the BAR.
Sorry, missed it!
Cheers,
Muli
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majord...@
On 10.12.2009, at 10:52, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
> On 10.12.2009, at 10:43, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 07:16:04AM +0200, Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote:
>>> On Wed, Dec 09, 2009 at 06:38:54PM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>>
While trying to get device passthrough workin
On 10.12.2009, at 10:43, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 07:16:04AM +0200, Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 09, 2009 at 06:38:54PM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>
>>> While trying to get device passthrough working with an emulex hba,
>>> kvm refused to pass it through be
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 07:16:04AM +0200, Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 09, 2009 at 06:38:54PM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
> > While trying to get device passthrough working with an emulex hba,
> > kvm refused to pass it through because it has a BAR of 256 bytes:
> >
> > Region 0
On 10.12.2009, at 06:16, Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 09, 2009 at 06:38:54PM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
>> While trying to get device passthrough working with an emulex hba,
>> kvm refused to pass it through because it has a BAR of 256 bytes:
>>
>>Region 0: Memory at d21
On Wed, Dec 09, 2009 at 06:38:54PM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
> While trying to get device passthrough working with an emulex hba,
> kvm refused to pass it through because it has a BAR of 256 bytes:
>
> Region 0: Memory at d210 (64-bit, non-prefetchable) [size=4K]
> Region 2:
Am 09.12.2009 um 21:49 schrieb "Michael S. Tsirkin" :
On Wed, Dec 09, 2009 at 06:38:54PM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
While trying to get device passthrough working with an emulex hba,
kvm
refused to pass it through because it has a BAR of 256 bytes:
Region 0: Memory at d210 (64-
On Wed, Dec 09, 2009 at 06:38:54PM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
> While trying to get device passthrough working with an emulex hba, kvm
> refused to pass it through because it has a BAR of 256 bytes:
>
> Region 0: Memory at d210 (64-bit, non-prefetchable) [size=4K]
> Region 2:
While trying to get device passthrough working with an emulex hba, kvm
refused to pass it through because it has a BAR of 256 bytes:
Region 0: Memory at d210 (64-bit, non-prefetchable) [size=4K]
Region 2: Memory at d2101000 (64-bit, non-prefetchable) [size=256]
Region 4
30 matches
Mail list logo
