On 15/11/06 2:58 am, Herbert Xu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It isn't always system memory. Some DMA controllers deliberately write to
device FIFOs. There are also several devices which map areas of onboard RAM.
At minimum you need to make those to use RAM mappings rather than MMIO.
I'm not
On 15/11/06 11:12, Herbert Xu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Could we add a recursion counter to the memory-access functions, and bail if
it reaches some limit?
Yes that would work too. However, chips such as rtl8139 should never
do MMIO in this case (the real hardware would never allow that to
On 16/11/06 5:11 am, Herbert Xu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The only harm done to a host is that the process will take as much CPU
as it can get. This is really only a problem in Xen because the device
model is in Domain-0. Once the device model is in a different domain,
it doesn't matter
On Thu, Nov 16, 2006 at 07:52:45AM +, Keir Fraser wrote:
Each qemu 'stub domain' will be dedicated to a single guest. Adding a
You're right of course. Somehow I was thinking of having the physical
NIC in the qemu domain which obviously isn't the case.
recursion counter to the memory
On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 07:55:48AM +, Keir Fraser wrote:
I'm not suggesting that we change all existing users of cpu_physical_*
to a new interface that only accessed RAM. However, for cases where it
is obvious that only system RAM is intended (e.g., rtl8139), it makes
sense to bypass
However, chips such as rtl8139 should never
do MMIO in this case (the real hardware would never allow that to occur)
Really? Why wouldn't it work on real hardware?
Paul
___
Qemu-devel mailing list
Qemu-devel@nongnu.org
On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 03:02:02PM +, Paul Brook wrote:
However, chips such as rtl8139 should never
do MMIO in this case (the real hardware would never allow that to occur)
Really? Why wouldn't it work on real hardware?
For rtl8139 it would cause a Master Abort.
Cheers,
--
Visit
