On 14/07/15 13:06, Pavel Fedin wrote:
> This patch set brings back functionality which was broken in v4.1. The
> overall goal is to eventually enable using virtual timer too, but for now
> changes affect only a possibility to run KVM itself. The guest currently
> has to use another timer because th
Hello!
> Believe it or not, we're not only patch reviewing machines, and if you
> count the number of pending patches, you'll quickly notice that yours
> are basically noise in the grand scheme of things.
>
> So please cut us some slack.
What do you mean exactly? Stop discussions and just do e
On 19/07/15 15:05, Pavel Fedin wrote:
> Hello!
>
>> Believe it or not, we're not only patch reviewing machines, and if you
>> count the number of pending patches, you'll quickly notice that yours
>> are basically noise in the grand scheme of things.
>>
>> So please cut us some slack.
>
> What do
Hello!
> It means that a pause in the discussion for a week (or even more) is not
> uncommon at all. It just means that the other party is busy with things
> of higher priority. In all cases, a gentle "ping" will be better
> received than this "you've stopped replying so I'm going to repost until
On 22/07/15 08:19, Pavel Fedin wrote:
>> I don't care much for such an API, mostly because it will obviously
>> bitrot very quickly (your "broken VGIC" platform is hopefully a one off
>> that won't be repeated again, and the RPi is out of scope anyway).
>>
>> It would have to be extremely non-intr
> > Ok, let's leave this API alone then for now...
> > Will then be a concensus if i tweak the thing a little bit and we just
> > enable KVM without both
vGIC
> > and vTimer ? It will be an emulator's problem how to handle them then.
>
> Well, let's see the patches first, and how invasive they
On 24/07/15 16:27, Pavel Fedin wrote:
>>> Ok, let's leave this API alone then for now...
>>> Will then be a concensus if i tweak the thing a little bit and we just
>>> enable KVM without both
> vGIC
>>> and vTimer ? It will be an emulator's problem how to handle them then.
>>
>> Well, let's see
Hello!
> As I said before, not having a VGIC pretty much puts you in an uncharted
> territory, and the amount of hacks you have to introduce are not really
> worth the effort in mainline.
And i agreed. So, i repeat the question. Will it be OK if we just enable KVM
without both vGIC and
vTimer,
On 26/07/15 13:50, Pavel Fedin wrote:
> Hello!
>
>> As I said before, not having a VGIC pretty much puts you in an uncharted
>> territory, and the amount of hacks you have to introduce are not really
>> worth the effort in mainline.
>
> And i agreed. So, i repeat the question. Will it be OK if w
Hello!
> > And i agreed. So, i repeat the question. Will it be OK if we just
> > enable KVM without both vGIC and vTimer, and that's all we do? It
> > will be userland's problem how to handle them. I need to tweak my
> > first patchset a very small bit in order to do this.
>
> I I'll repeat what
On 27/07/15 09:36, Pavel Fedin wrote:
> Hello!
>
>>> And i agreed. So, i repeat the question. Will it be OK if we just
>>> enable KVM without both vGIC and vTimer, and that's all we do? It
>>> will be userland's problem how to handle them. I need to tweak my
>>> first patchset a very small bit in
11 matches
Mail list logo
