Sudeep Dutt writes:
> On Mon, 2013-07-29 at 10:05 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 08:31:34PM -0700, Sudeep Dutt wrote:
>> > From: Ashutosh Dixit
>> >
>> > This patch introduces the host "Virtio over PCIe" interface for
>> > Intel MIC. It allows creating user space ba
On 08/06/2013 04:20 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
So, having read through the entire thread I *think* this is what the
status of this patchset is:
1. Patches 1-17 are noncontroversial, Raghavendra is going to send an
update split into two patchsets;
Yes. Only one patch would be common to both
So, having read through the entire thread I *think* this is what the
status of this patchset is:
1. Patches 1-17 are noncontroversial, Raghavendra is going to send an
update split into two patchsets;
2. There are at least two versions of patch 15; I think the "PATCH
RESEND RFC" is the right
On 08/02/2013 04:13 PM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Chen Gang writes:
>
>> It is a trivial patch for "include/uapi", exclude "linux" sub-directory.
>>
>> If it is useful, I will send another patch for "linux" sub-directory.
>>
>> BTW: it is really big mail addresses from
>> "./scripts/get_maintain
On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 08:20:53AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 08/05/2013 07:34 AM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> >
> > Could you provide me with a git branch so I can test it overnight please?
> >
>
> Pull tip:x86/paravirt.
It works for me. Thanks.
>
> -hpa
>
>
On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 11:46:03AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Gleb Natapov wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Aug 02, 2013 at 11:25:39AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > > Ingo,
> > > >
> > > > Do you have any concerns reg this series? please let me know if this
> > > > looks good now to you.
> > >
> >
On 08/05/2013 07:34 AM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>
> Could you provide me with a git branch so I can test it overnight please?
>
Pull tip:x86/paravirt.
-hpa
___
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https:
> Only thing I am thinking is about KVM_FEATURE_PV_UNHALT, and
> KVM_HC_KICK_CPU definition in the below hunk, that is needed by guest
> as well. may be this header file change can be a separate patch so that
> duplicate can be handled easily during merge?
Sure, good idea.
Paolo
> I do testing o
On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 11:38:14AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> On 07/25/2013 04:54 PM, Jason Wang wrote:
> > We try to handle the hypervisor compatibility mode by detecting hypervisor
> > through a specific order. This is not robust, since hypervisors may
> > implement
> > each others features.
> >
On 08/05/2013 07:35 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
I guess you'd want to carry this in the KVM tree or so - maybe in a
separate branch because it changes Xen as well?
It changes KVM host and guest side, XEN and common x86 spinlock code. I
think it would be best to merge common x86 spinlock bits and g
> > On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 11:46:03AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > Acked-by: Ingo Molnar
> > >
> > > I guess you'd want to carry this in the KVM tree or so - maybe in a
> > > separate branch because it changes Xen as well?
> >
> > It changes KVM host and guest side, XEN and common x86 spinlo
* Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 11:46:03AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > Acked-by: Ingo Molnar
> >
> > I guess you'd want to carry this in the KVM tree or so - maybe in a
> > separate branch because it changes Xen as well?
>
> It changes KVM host and guest side, XEN and commo
That result was only for patch 18 of the series, not pvspinlock in
general.
Okay - I've re-read the performance numbers and they are impressive, so no
objections from me.
The x86 impact seems to be a straightforward API change, with most of the
changes on the virtualization side. So:
Acked-b
* Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 02, 2013 at 11:25:39AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > Ingo,
> > >
> > > Do you have any concerns reg this series? please let me know if this
> > > looks good now to you.
> >
> > I'm inclined to NAK it for excessive quotation - who knows how many
> > peopl
14 matches
Mail list logo
