Dong, Eddie wrote:
> So I have 2 choices:
> 1: Port PIC to APIC patch which will use irqdevice abstraction layer and
> V09 irq injection path + bug fix mentioned above.
>
> 2: Port APIC to PIC patch (have above mentioned issue fixed) which
> eliminates irqdevice abstraction layer.
> We can discuss
On Tue, 2007-06-26 at 00:36 -0700, Dor Laor wrote:
>
> Regarding merging it with mainline, if the AMD problems are over (as I
> think they are) we can do it.
Did someone figure out what was wrong with the svm.c changes? Cool! Is
the patch checked into the branch?
Dor Laor wrote:
>> On Tue, 2007-06-26 at 11:02 +0800, Dong, Eddie wrote:
>>> Greg/Dor:
>>> When thinking to merge APIC device model with PIC, a curious
>>> question: Where does the code base come from? Xen or Qemu? I found
>>> there are many diff from Xen (even excluding name difference).
>>> E
>On Tue, 2007-06-26 at 11:02 +0800, Dong, Eddie wrote:
>> Greg/Dor:
>> When thinking to merge APIC device model with PIC, a curious
>> question: Where does the code base come from? Xen or Qemu? I found
there
>> are many diff from Xen (even excluding name difference).
>> Eddie
>
>I am fairly ce
On Tue, 2007-06-26 at 11:02 +0800, Dong, Eddie wrote:
> Greg/Dor:
> When thinking to merge APIC device model with PIC, a curious
> question: Where does the code base come from? Xen or Qemu? I found there
> are many diff from Xen (even excluding name difference).
> Eddie
I am fairly certain
Greg/Dor:
When thinking to merge APIC device model with PIC, a curious
question: Where does the code base come from? Xen or Qemu? I found there
are many diff from Xen (even excluding name difference).
Eddie
-
This SF.
