Jesse Barnes wrote:
Given a respin of 10-13 I think it's reasonable to merge this into 2.6.29,
but
I'd be much happier about it if we got some driver code along with it, so as
not to have an unused interface sitting around for who knows how many
releases. Is that reasonable? Do you know
As noted in the attached email to the netdev list, we (e1000_devel) will
support the API.
- Greg Rose
-Original Message-
From: kvm-ow...@vger.kernel.org [mailto:kvm-ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of
Greg KH
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2008 10:06 PM
To: Jike Song
Cc: Jesse Barnes;
A: No.
Q: Should I include quotations after my reply?
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 08:44:03AM -0800, Rose, Gregory V wrote:
As noted in the attached email to the netdev list, we (e1000_devel) will
support the API.
Great, will you have patches for the existing e1000 drivers soon to use
it? Or
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 12:25:32AM +0300, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 08:57:27AM +0200, Gleb Natapov (g...@redhat.com)
wrote:
Another approach is to implement that virtio backend with netlink based
userspace interface (like using connector or genetlink). This does not
On Wednesday, December 17, 2008 8:44 am Rose, Gregory V wrote:
As noted in the attached email to the netdev list, we (e1000_devel) will
support the API.
Do you think you'll have those changes ready for 2.6.29? Would merging core
SR-IOV support now make that any more likely?
Thanks,
Jesse
On Wednesday, December 17, 2008 3:42 am Fischer, Anna wrote:
I have two minor comments on this topic.
1) Currently the PF driver is called before the kernel initializes VFs and
their resources, and the current API does not allow the PF driver to
detect that easily if the allocation of the VFs
-Original Message-
From: Jesse Barnes [mailto:jbar...@virtuousgeek.org]
On Wednesday, December 17, 2008 8:44 am Rose, Gregory V wrote:
As noted in the attached email to the netdev list, we (e1000_devel) will
support the API.
Do you think you'll have those changes ready for 2.6.29?
On Wednesday, December 17, 2008 6:15 am Matthew Wilcox wrote:
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 03:23:53PM -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote:
I applied 1-9 to my linux-next branch; and at least patch #10 needs a
respin,
I still object to #2. We should have the flexibility to have 'struct
resource's that
Rose, Gregory V wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Jesse Barnes [mailto:jbar...@virtuousgeek.org]
On Wednesday, December 17, 2008 8:44 am Rose, Gregory V wrote:
As noted in the attached email to the netdev list, we (e1000_devel) will
support the API.
Do you think you'll
Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
Which dom0 kernel are you using? Is it based on my pvops-based dom0 work?
The kernel I'm currently using is an ad-hoc patchwork of changes to the 2.6.18
Xen Dom0 kernel that was available back in August. The folks from OTC in Intel
(Zhao Yu and his team) would
From: linux-pci-ow...@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-pci-
ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Jesse Barnes
Sent: 16 December 2008 23:24
To: Yu Zhao
Cc: linux-...@vger.kernel.org; Chiang, Alexander; Helgaas, Bjorn;
grund...@parisc-linux.org; g...@kroah.com; mi...@elte.hu;
matt...@wil.cx;
On Wednesday, December 17, 2008 11:51 am Greg KH wrote:
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 11:42:54AM -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote:
I really don't want the SR-IOV stuff to sit out another merge cycle
though... Arg.
Why, is there some rush to get it in? As there is no in-kernel users of
it, I don't see
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 03:23:53PM -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote:
I applied 1-9 to my linux-next branch; and at least patch #10 needs a respin,
I still object to #2. We should have the flexibility to have 'struct
resource's that are not in this array in the pci_dev. I would like to
see the SR-IOV
Matthew Wilcox wrote:
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 03:23:53PM -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote:
I applied 1-9 to my linux-next branch; and at least patch #10 needs a
respin,
I still object to #2. We should have the flexibility to have 'struct
resource's that are not in this array in the pci_dev. I
14 matches
Mail list logo
