It seems that a lot of complexity and trickiness with iosignalfd is
handling the group/item relationship, which comes about because kvm does
not currently let a device on the bus claim a write transaction based on the
value written. This could be greatly simplified if the value written
was passed
Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> It seems that a lot of complexity and trickiness with iosignalfd is
> handling the group/item relationship, which comes about because kvm does
> not currently let a device on the bus claim a write transaction based on the
> value written. This could be greatly simplifie
Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 11:45:00AM -0400, Gregory Haskins wrote:
>
>> Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>
>>> It seems that a lot of complexity and trickiness with iosignalfd is
>>> handling the group/item relationship, which comes about because kvm does
>>> not current
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 11:45:00AM -0400, Gregory Haskins wrote:
> Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > It seems that a lot of complexity and trickiness with iosignalfd is
> > handling the group/item relationship, which comes about because kvm does
> > not currently let a device on the bus claim a write t
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 12:29:10PM -0400, Gregory Haskins wrote:
> Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 11:45:00AM -0400, Gregory Haskins wrote:
> >
> >> Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >>
> >>> It seems that a lot of complexity and trickiness with iosignalfd is
> >>> handling
Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 12:29:10PM -0400, Gregory Haskins wrote:
>
>> Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 11:45:00AM -0400, Gregory Haskins wrote:
>>>
>>>
Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> It seems that a
On 06/22/2009 07:08 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 11:45:00AM -0400, Gregory Haskins wrote:
Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
It seems that a lot of complexity and trickiness with iosignalfd is
handling the group/item relationship, which comes about because kvm does
not
On 06/22/2009 07:29 PM, Gregory Haskins wrote:
We actually already have aliasing: is_write flag is used for this
purpose.
Yes, but read/write address aliasing is not the same thing is
multi-match data aliasing. Besides, your proposal also breaks some of
the natural relationship models (e
Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 06/22/2009 07:08 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 11:45:00AM -0400, Gregory Haskins wrote:
>>
>>> Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>>
It seems that a lot of complexity and trickiness with iosignalfd is
handling the group/item relationship,
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 12:04:06AM -0400, Gregory Haskins wrote:
> >> It will also need to support
> >> multiple matches.
> >>
> >
> > What, signal many fds on the same address/value pair?
> > I see this as a bug. Why is this a good thing to support?
> > Just increases the chance of leaking t
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 07:41:12AM -0400, Gregory Haskins wrote:
> Avi Kivity wrote:
> > On 06/22/2009 07:08 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >> On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 11:45:00AM -0400, Gregory Haskins wrote:
> >>
> >>> Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >>>
> It seems that a lot of complexit
On 06/23/2009 07:04 AM, Gregory Haskins wrote:
Well, for one its not very clear what the benefit of the read/write
aliasing even is. ;) Apparently coalesced_mmio uses it, but even so I
doubt that is for the purposes of having one device do reads while
another does writes. I could be wrong, thou
Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 12:04:06AM -0400, Gregory Haskins wrote:
>
It will also need to support
multiple matches.
>>> What, signal many fds on the same address/value pair?
>>> I see this as a bug. Why is this a good thing to support?
On 06/23/2009 02:44 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 12:04:06AM -0400, Gregory Haskins wrote:
It will also need to support
multiple matches.
What, signal many fds on the same address/value pair?
I see this as a bug. Why is this a good thing to support?
Just
Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 06/23/2009 02:44 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 12:04:06AM -0400, Gregory Haskins wrote:
>>
> It will also need to support
> multiple matches.
>
>
What, signal many fds on the same address/value pair?
I see th
On 06/23/2009 03:01 PM, Gregory Haskins wrote:
Ok, so for now I will just crank up the io_bus array, and we can address
scale another day. Can I just drop patch 2/3 and let the io_bus govern
the limit?
So long as we have a runtime-discoverable limit, yes.
--
error compiling committee.c: t
16 matches
Mail list logo