On 01/13/2016 04:32 PM, Victor Kaplansky wrote:
On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 01:05:52PM +0100, Didier Pallard wrote:
On 01/12/2016 09:26 AM, Victor Kaplansky wrote:
This RFC PATCH tries to solve the problem of lost interrupts
>from a slow back-end. Didier could you test it?
Thanks, Victor
When in
On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 01:05:52PM +0100, Didier Pallard wrote:
> On 01/12/2016 09:26 AM, Victor Kaplansky wrote:
> >This RFC PATCH tries to solve the problem of lost interrupts
> >from a slow back-end. Didier could you test it?
> >
> >Thanks, Victor
> >
> >When interrupts are unmasked, it could ta
On 01/12/2016 09:26 AM, Victor Kaplansky wrote:
This RFC PATCH tries to solve the problem of lost interrupts
from a slow back-end. Didier could you test it?
Thanks, Victor
When interrupts are unmasked, it could take some undefined time
to the back-end to start routing events to guest_notifier.
This RFC PATCH tries to solve the problem of lost interrupts
from a slow back-end. Didier could you test it?
Thanks, Victor
When interrupts are unmasked, it could take some undefined time
to the back-end to start routing events to guest_notifier. Till
that the events will continue flow to masked_
