On 29/04/19 15:58, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 07:16:28PM +, Raslan, KarimAllah wrote:
>> On Mon, 2019-03-18 at 10:22 -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>>> On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 01:10:24PM +, Raslan, KarimAllah wrote:
I guess this patch series missed
On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 07:16:28PM +, Raslan, KarimAllah wrote:
> On Mon, 2019-03-18 at 10:22 -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 01:10:24PM +, Raslan, KarimAllah wrote:
> > >
> > > I guess this patch series missed the 5.1 merge window? :)
> >
> > Were there an
On Mon, 2019-03-18 at 10:22 -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 01:10:24PM +, Raslan, KarimAllah wrote:
> >
> > I guess this patch series missed the 5.1 merge window? :)
>
> Were there any outstanding fixes that had to be addressed?
Not as far as I can remember. Thi
On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 01:10:24PM +, Raslan, KarimAllah wrote:
> I guess this patch series missed the 5.1 merge window? :)
Were there any outstanding fixes that had to be addressed?
>
> On Thu, 2019-01-31 at 21:24 +0100, KarimAllah Ahmed wrote:
> > Guest memory can either be directly manage
I guess this patch series missed the 5.1 merge window? :)
On Thu, 2019-01-31 at 21:24 +0100, KarimAllah Ahmed wrote:
> Guest memory can either be directly managed by the kernel (i.e. have a "struct
> page") or they can simply live outside kernel control (i.e. do not have a
> "struct page"). KVM mo
Guest memory can either be directly managed by the kernel (i.e. have a "struct
page") or they can simply live outside kernel control (i.e. do not have a
"struct page"). KVM mostly support these two modes, except in a few places
where the code seems to assume that guest memory must have a "struct pa
6 matches
Mail list logo
