Currently, virtio devices are usually presented to the guest as an
emulated PCI device, virtio_pci. Although the actual IO operations
are done through system memory, the configuration of the virtio device
is done through the one PCI IO space BAR that virtio_pci presents.
But PCI IO space (aka PIO
On 09/30/2011 12:26 AM, David Gibson wrote:
Currently, virtio devices are usually presented to the guest as an
emulated PCI device, virtio_pci. Although the actual IO operations
are done through system memory, the configuration of the virtio device
is done through the one PCI IO space BAR that v
On 11/01/2011 07:16 PM, David Gibson wrote:
On Tue, Nov 01, 2011 at 05:20:06PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 09/30/2011 12:26 AM, David Gibson wrote:
Currently, virtio devices are usually presented to the guest as an
emulated PCI device, virtio_pci. Although the actual IO operations
are don
On Tue, Nov 01, 2011 at 05:20:06PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 09/30/2011 12:26 AM, David Gibson wrote:
> >Currently, virtio devices are usually presented to the guest as an
> >emulated PCI device, virtio_pci. Although the actual IO operations
> >are done through system memory, the configur
On Tue, 01 Nov 2011 17:20:06 -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 09/30/2011 12:26 AM, David Gibson wrote:
> > Currently, virtio devices are usually presented to the guest as an
> > emulated PCI device, virtio_pci. Although the actual IO operations
> > are done through system memory, the configurat
On 11/01/2011 10:22 PM, Rusty Russell wrote:
On Tue, 01 Nov 2011 17:20:06 -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 09/30/2011 12:26 AM, David Gibson wrote:
Currently, virtio devices are usually presented to the guest as an
emulated PCI device, virtio_pci. Although the actual IO operations
are done th
On Wed, Nov 02, 2011 at 01:52:55PM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Nov 2011 17:20:06 -0500, Anthony Liguori
> wrote:
> > On 09/30/2011 12:26 AM, David Gibson wrote:
> > > Currently, virtio devices are usually presented to the guest as an
> > > emulated PCI device, virtio_pci. Although t
On 11/02/2011 12:20 AM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>
> Seems harmless for QEMU, so applied. You should update the virtio-pci
> spec too.
Should be the other way round.
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
On 11/03/2011 05:36 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 11/02/2011 12:20 AM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
Seems harmless for QEMU, so applied. You should update the virtio-pci
spec too.
Should be the other way round.
Am not entirely sure. Having worked code that's been reviewed will make for a
better spe
On 11/03/2011 03:07 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 11/03/2011 05:36 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
>> On 11/02/2011 12:20 AM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>>>
>>> Seems harmless for QEMU, so applied. You should update the virtio-pci
>>> spec too.
>>
>> Should be the other way round.
>
> Am not entirely sure. H
On 11/03/2011 08:13 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 11/03/2011 03:07 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 11/03/2011 05:36 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 11/02/2011 12:20 AM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
Seems harmless for QEMU, so applied. You should update the virtio-pci
spec too.
Should be the other way round.
On 11/03/2011 03:38 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>>
>>> We could use a better agreement on the processor for making virtio
>>> changes. Should it go (1) virtio spec (2) kernel (3) qemu, or should
>>> it go (2), (1), (3)?
>>
>> 1. Informal discussion
>
>
> Where? Is this lkml? There were a number of
On 11/03/2011 08:45 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 11/03/2011 03:38 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
We could use a better agreement on the processor for making virtio
changes. Should it go (1) virtio spec (2) kernel (3) qemu, or should
it go (2), (1), (3)?
1. Informal discussion
Where? Is this lkml
On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 08:49:31AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 11/03/2011 08:45 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> >On 11/03/2011 03:38 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> >>>
> We could use a better agreement on the processor for making virtio
> changes. Should it go (1) virtio spec (2) kernel (3) qe
On 11/03/2011 09:31 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 08:49:31AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 11/03/2011 08:45 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 11/03/2011 03:38 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
We could use a better agreement on the processor for making virtio
changes. Should it go
On 11/03/2011 04:37 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>
>> 2. Proposed spec patch, kernel change, qemu change
>> 3. Buy-ins from spec maintainer, kernel driver maintainer, qemu
>> device
>> maintainer (only regarding the ABI, not the code)
>
> I don't think this is how it's working
16 matches
Mail list logo
