On Mon, Jun 05, 2017 at 04:51:55PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> >
> > I think that if we could get rid of both accesses, it would be
> > nice. Would need a feature bit naturally and we'd need to
> > support old kernels but at least it will be contained and
> > well documented.
> >
>
> Technically
On 2017年06月02日 23:24, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 01:53:11PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
On 2017年06月01日 21:59, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 04:33:33PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
On 2017年05月31日 02:20, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Fri, May 26, 2017 at
On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 01:53:11PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>
>
> On 2017年06月01日 21:59, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 04:33:33PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > >
> > > On 2017年05月31日 02:20, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 04:28:52PM +0200, Maxime
On 2017年06月01日 21:59, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 04:33:33PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
On 2017年05月31日 02:20, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 04:28:52PM +0200, Maxime Coquelin wrote:
This series aims at specifying ans implementing the protocol update
On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 04:33:33PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>
>
> On 2017年05月31日 02:20, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 04:28:52PM +0200, Maxime Coquelin wrote:
> > > This series aims at specifying ans implementing the protocol update
> > > required to support device IOTLB
On 06/01/2017 09:04 AM, Jason Wang wrote:
On 2017年05月31日 23:32, Maxime Coquelin wrote:
[0]:https://gitlab.com/mcoquelin/dpdk-next-virtio/commits/vhost_iotlb_proto_v2
[1]:https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2016-04/msg00095.html
Overall, this looks good to me. I do think patch
On 2017年05月31日 23:32, Maxime Coquelin wrote:
[0]:https://gitlab.com/mcoquelin/dpdk-next-virtio/commits/vhost_iotlb_proto_v2
[1]:https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2016-04/msg00095.html
Overall, this looks good to me. I do think patch 3 isn't a good idea
though, if slave wants
Hi,
On 05/31/2017 10:33 AM, Jason Wang wrote:
On 2017年05月31日 02:20, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 04:28:52PM +0200, Maxime Coquelin wrote:
This series aims at specifying ans implementing the protocol update
required to support device IOTLB with user backends.
In this
On 2017年05月31日 02:20, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 04:28:52PM +0200, Maxime Coquelin wrote:
This series aims at specifying ans implementing the protocol update
required to support device IOTLB with user backends.
In this second non-RFC version, main changes are:
- spec
On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 04:28:52PM +0200, Maxime Coquelin wrote:
> This series aims at specifying ans implementing the protocol update
> required to support device IOTLB with user backends.
>
> In this second non-RFC version, main changes are:
> - spec fixes and clarification
> - rings
Hi,
On 05/26/2017 04:28 PM, Maxime Coquelin wrote:
This series aims at specifying ans implementing the protocol update
required to support device IOTLB with user backends.
In this second non-RFC version, main changes are:
- spec fixes and clarification
- rings information update has been
This series aims at specifying ans implementing the protocol update
required to support device IOTLB with user backends.
In this second non-RFC version, main changes are:
- spec fixes and clarification
- rings information update has been restored back to ring enablement time
- Work around GCC
12 matches
Mail list logo
