On Fri, 2019-01-11 at 09:50 +0100, Peter Lieven wrote:
> > Am 11.01.2019 um 08:14 schrieb Vadim Rozenfeld > >:
> >
> > > On Thu, 2019-01-10 at 14:57 +0100, Peter Lieven wrote:
> > > > Am 18.12.18 um 15:45 schrieb Peter Lieven:
> > > > > Am 18.12.18 um 14:15 schrieb Vadim Rozenfeld:
> > > > >
> Am 11.01.2019 um 08:14 schrieb Vadim Rozenfeld :
>
>> On Thu, 2019-01-10 at 14:57 +0100, Peter Lieven wrote:
>>> Am 18.12.18 um 15:45 schrieb Peter Lieven:
Am 18.12.18 um 14:15 schrieb Vadim Rozenfeld:
Peter, I must be missing something here, but what exactly the
problem
On Thu, 2019-01-10 at 14:57 +0100, Peter Lieven wrote:
> Am 18.12.18 um 15:45 schrieb Peter Lieven:
> > Am 18.12.18 um 14:15 schrieb Vadim Rozenfeld:
> > > Peter, I must be missing something here, but what exactly the
> > > problem
> > > is?
> >
> > The issue is that I see concurrent read
Am 18.12.18 um 15:45 schrieb Peter Lieven:
Am 18.12.18 um 14:15 schrieb Vadim Rozenfeld:
Peter, I must be missing something here, but what exactly the problem
is?
The issue is that I see concurrent read requests coming in from Windows Guest
with vioscsi as driver that
have the same buffer
On Mon, 2018-12-17 at 18:07 -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 04:19:53PM +0100, Peter Lieven wrote:
> > Am 17.12.18 um 15:48 schrieb Stefan Hajnoczi:
> > > On Sun, Dec 16, 2018 at 06:53:44PM +0100, Peter Lieven wrote:
> > > > It turned out that for writes a bounce buffer
Am 18.12.18 um 14:15 schrieb Vadim Rozenfeld:
> Peter, I must be missing something here, but what exactly the problem
> is?
The issue is that I see concurrent read requests coming in from Windows Guest
with vioscsi as driver that
have the same buffer address from guest memory space. I noticed
Am 18.12.18 um 10:34 schrieb Stefan Hajnoczi:
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 04:19:53PM +0100, Peter Lieven wrote:
>> Actually I don't know for sure that the address comes from the guest. In
>> theory it could be that
>> the request from the guest was less than 4096 byte and Qemu just assigned a
>>
On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 04:19:53PM +0100, Peter Lieven wrote:
> Actually I don't know for sure that the address comes from the guest. In
> theory it could be that
> the request from the guest was less than 4096 byte and Qemu just assigned a
> bounce buffer
> to read the whole block and copied
On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 04:19:53PM +0100, Peter Lieven wrote:
> Am 17.12.18 um 15:48 schrieb Stefan Hajnoczi:
> > On Sun, Dec 16, 2018 at 06:53:44PM +0100, Peter Lieven wrote:
> > > It turned out that for writes a bounce buffer is indeed always necessary.
> > > But what I found out is that
> > >
Am 17.12.18 um 15:48 schrieb Stefan Hajnoczi:
On Sun, Dec 16, 2018 at 06:53:44PM +0100, Peter Lieven wrote:
It turned out that for writes a bounce buffer is indeed always necessary. But
what I found out is that
it seems that even for reads it happens that the OS (Windows in this case)
issues
On Sun, Dec 16, 2018 at 06:53:44PM +0100, Peter Lieven wrote:
> It turned out that for writes a bounce buffer is indeed always necessary. But
> what I found out is that
> it seems that even for reads it happens that the OS (Windows in this case)
> issues 2 read requests with
> the same buffer in
Von: Paolo Bonzini
> > Yes, it's ugly but it's legal. It probably doesn't happen on real hardware
> > that computes the checksum after or during DMA and has some kind of buffer
> > inside the board. But on virt there is only one copy until we reach the
> > actual physical hardware.
> > Yes, it's ugly but it's legal. It probably doesn't happen on real hardware
> > that computes the checksum after or during DMA and has some kind of buffer
> > inside the board. But on virt there is only one copy until we reach the
> > actual physical hardware.
>
> okay, so it's no bug. and
> Am 07.06.2017 um 01:17 schrieb Paolo Bonzini :
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
>> From: "Peter Lieven"
>> To: "qemu block"
>> Cc: "Paolo Bonzini" , stefa...@redhat.com,
>> kw...@redhat.com, "Max Reitz"
- Original Message -
> From: "Peter Lieven"
> To: "qemu block"
> Cc: "Paolo Bonzini" , stefa...@redhat.com,
> kw...@redhat.com, "Max Reitz" ,
> "Michael S. Tsirkin"
> Sent: Tuesday, June 6,
Hi,
ich have spend several hours debugging a strange checksum error issue and
finally found the cause, but I am totally unsure if whats happening
is correct or not.
Imagine a Protocol like iSCSI which has a Data Digest and which receives its
data via zero copy straight from the guest kernel
16 matches
Mail list logo