On 11/07/16 17:49, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 21:24:25 +0200
> Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>
>> On 10/25/16 20:42, Alex Williamson wrote:
>>> On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 20:24:19 +0200
>>> Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>>>
Some systems have multiple instances of the exact same kind of PCI device
On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 21:24:25 +0200
Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> On 10/25/16 20:42, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 20:24:19 +0200
> > Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> >
> >> Some systems have multiple instances of the exact same kind of PCI device
> >> installed. When VFIO users intend to assign
On 10/25/16 20:24, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> Some systems have multiple instances of the exact same kind of PCI device
> installed. When VFIO users intend to assign these devices to VMs, they
> occasionally don't want to assign all of them; they'd keep a few for
> host-side use. The current ID- and cla
On 10/25/16 21:24, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> On 10/25/16 20:42, Alex Williamson wrote:
>> FWIW, I think the reason
>> this hasn't been done to date is that PCI bus addresses (except for
>> root bus devices) are not stable. Depending on the system, the address
>> of a given device may change, not only
On 10/25/16 20:42, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 20:24:19 +0200
> Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>
>> Some systems have multiple instances of the exact same kind of PCI device
>> installed. When VFIO users intend to assign these devices to VMs, they
>> occasionally don't want to assign all of
On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 20:24:19 +0200
Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> Some systems have multiple instances of the exact same kind of PCI device
> installed. When VFIO users intend to assign these devices to VMs, they
> occasionally don't want to assign all of them; they'd keep a few for
> host-side use. The c
6 matches
Mail list logo
