On Mon, Dec 08, 2014 at 10:38:09AM +, David Vrabel wrote:
> On 05/12/14 17:22, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 10:30:01AM +, David Vrabel wrote:
> >> On 04/12/14 15:39, Alex Williamson wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I don't know what workaround you're talking about. As devices
On 05/12/14 17:22, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 10:30:01AM +, David Vrabel wrote:
>> On 04/12/14 15:39, Alex Williamson wrote:
>>>
>>> I don't know what workaround you're talking about. As devices are
>>> released from the user, vfio-pci attempts to reset them. If
>>
On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 10:30:01AM +, David Vrabel wrote:
> On 04/12/14 15:39, Alex Williamson wrote:
> >
> > I don't know what workaround you're talking about. As devices are
> > released from the user, vfio-pci attempts to reset them. If
> > pci_reset_function() returns success we mark the
On 04/12/14 15:39, Alex Williamson wrote:
>
> I don't know what workaround you're talking about. As devices are
> released from the user, vfio-pci attempts to reset them. If
> pci_reset_function() returns success we mark the device clean, otherwise
> it gets marked dirty. Each time a device is
On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 02:31:11PM +, David Vrabel wrote:
> On 04/12/14 14:09, Sander Eikelenboom wrote:
> >
> > Thursday, December 4, 2014, 2:43:06 PM, you wrote:
> >
> >> On 04/12/14 13:10, Sander Eikelenboom wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Thursday, December 4, 2014, 1:24:47 PM, you wrote:
> >>>
>
On Thu, 2014-12-04 at 17:25 +0100, Sander Eikelenboom wrote:
> Thursday, December 4, 2014, 4:39:06 PM, you wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 2014-12-04 at 15:50 +0100, Sander Eikelenboom wrote:
> >> Thursday, December 4, 2014, 3:31:11 PM, you wrote:
> >>
> >> > On 04/12/14 14:09, Sander Eikelenboom wrote:
> >
Thursday, December 4, 2014, 4:39:06 PM, you wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-12-04 at 15:50 +0100, Sander Eikelenboom wrote:
>> Thursday, December 4, 2014, 3:31:11 PM, you wrote:
>>
>> > On 04/12/14 14:09, Sander Eikelenboom wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Thursday, December 4, 2014, 2:43:06 PM, you wrote:
>> >>
>> >
On Thu, 2014-12-04 at 15:50 +0100, Sander Eikelenboom wrote:
> Thursday, December 4, 2014, 3:31:11 PM, you wrote:
>
> > On 04/12/14 14:09, Sander Eikelenboom wrote:
> >>
> >> Thursday, December 4, 2014, 2:43:06 PM, you wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 04/12/14 13:10, Sander Eikelenboom wrote:
>
>
Thursday, December 4, 2014, 3:31:11 PM, you wrote:
> On 04/12/14 14:09, Sander Eikelenboom wrote:
>>
>> Thursday, December 4, 2014, 2:43:06 PM, you wrote:
>>
>>> On 04/12/14 13:10, Sander Eikelenboom wrote:
Thursday, December 4, 2014, 1:24:47 PM, you wrote:
> On 04/12/14 12:0
On 04/12/14 14:09, Sander Eikelenboom wrote:
>
> Thursday, December 4, 2014, 2:43:06 PM, you wrote:
>
>> On 04/12/14 13:10, Sander Eikelenboom wrote:
>>>
>>> Thursday, December 4, 2014, 1:24:47 PM, you wrote:
>>>
On 04/12/14 12:06, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>
> On Dec 4, 2014 6:30
Hello Sander,
Thursday, December 4, 2014, 3:09:09 PM, you wrote:
> Thursday, December 4, 2014, 2:43:06 PM, you wrote:
>> On 04/12/14 13:10, Sander Eikelenboom wrote:
>>>
>>> Thursday, December 4, 2014, 1:24:47 PM, you wrote:
>>>
On 04/12/14 12:06, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>
>
Thursday, December 4, 2014, 2:43:06 PM, you wrote:
> On 04/12/14 13:10, Sander Eikelenboom wrote:
>>
>> Thursday, December 4, 2014, 1:24:47 PM, you wrote:
>>
>>> On 04/12/14 12:06, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
On Dec 4, 2014 6:30 AM, David Vrabel wrote:
>
> On 03/12/14 21:40,
On 04/12/14 13:10, Sander Eikelenboom wrote:
>
> Thursday, December 4, 2014, 1:24:47 PM, you wrote:
>
>> On 04/12/14 12:06, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>>>
>>> On Dec 4, 2014 6:30 AM, David Vrabel wrote:
On 03/12/14 21:40, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>
> Instead of doing all
Thursday, December 4, 2014, 1:24:47 PM, you wrote:
> On 04/12/14 12:06, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>>
>> On Dec 4, 2014 6:30 AM, David Vrabel wrote:
>>>
>>> On 03/12/14 21:40, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
Instead of doing all this complex dance, we depend on the toolstack
doi
On 04/12/14 12:06, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>
> On Dec 4, 2014 6:30 AM, David Vrabel wrote:
>>
>> On 03/12/14 21:40, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>>>
>>> Instead of doing all this complex dance, we depend on the toolstack
>>> doing the right thing. As such implement the 'do_flr' SysFS attri
On Dec 4, 2014 6:30 AM, David Vrabel wrote:
>
> On 03/12/14 21:40, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> >
> > Instead of doing all this complex dance, we depend on the toolstack
> > doing the right thing. As such implement the 'do_flr' SysFS attribute
> > which 'xl' uses when a device is detached o
On 03/12/14 21:40, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>
> Instead of doing all this complex dance, we depend on the toolstack
> doing the right thing. As such implement the 'do_flr' SysFS attribute
> which 'xl' uses when a device is detached or attached from/to a guest.
> It bypasses the need to worry a
The life-cycle of a PCI device in Xen pciback is complex
and is constrained by the PCI generic locking mechanism.
It starts with the device being binded to us - for which
we do a device function reset (and done via SysFS
so the PCI lock is held)
If the device is unbinded from us - we also do a fu
18 matches
Mail list logo
