search for: bypassing

Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 11:08:21PM CEST, sridhar.samudrala at intel.com wrote: >This provides a generic interface for paravirtual drivers to listen >for netdev register/unregister/link change events from pci ethernet >devices with the same MAC and takeover their datapath. The notifier and >event handling code is based on the existing netvsc implementation. A >paravirtual driver can use

This provides a generic interface for paravirtual drivers to listen for netdev register/unregister/link change events from pci ethernet devices with the same MAC and takeover their datapath. The notifier and event handling code is based on the existing netvsc implementation. A paravirtual driver can use this module by registering a set of ops and each instance of the device when it is probed.

On 18.4.2013 ?. 22:24 ?., Arnaud Quette wrote: > > 2013/4/18 Pladi Computers Ltd. <pladi at lovechnet.com > <mailto:pladi at lovechnet.com>> > > UPS: > http://www.eaton.com/Eaton/ESeriesUPS/DXUPS/index.htm?wtredirect=www.eaton.com/DXUPS > > I have the same problem on two different computers. The first one > is running Ubuntu 12.10 i386 , the

UPS: http://www.eaton.com/Eaton/ESeriesUPS/DXUPS/index.htm?wtredirect=www.eaton.com/DXUPS I have the same problem on two different computers. The first one is running Ubuntu 12.10 i386 , the second one is running Debian 6.0 x64. Both of them are updated. I tried using different serial cable but the result is the same. The connection to the ups using Windows 7 and Winpower is working fine on

The main motivation for this patch is to enable cloud service providers to provide an accelerated datapath to virtio-net enabled VMs in a transparent manner with no/minimal guest userspace changes. This also enables hypervisor controlled live migration to be supported with VMs that have direct attached SR-IOV VF devices. Patch 1 introduces a new feature bit VIRTIO_NET_F_BACKUP that can be used

On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 04:37:04PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > One correction: it's a feature of the device in the system. > There could be a mix of devices bypassing and not > bypassing the IOMMU. No, it really is not. A device can't chose to bypass the IOMMU. But the IOMMU can chose to let the device bypass. So any fix here belongs into the platform/iommu code too and not into some driver. > Sounds good. And a way to detect appropriate devices coul...

On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 04:37:04PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > One correction: it's a feature of the device in the system. > There could be a mix of devices bypassing and not > bypassing the IOMMU. No, it really is not. A device can't chose to bypass the IOMMU. But the IOMMU can chose to let the device bypass. So any fix here belongs into the platform/iommu code too and not into some driver. > Sounds good. And a way to detect appropriate devices coul...

So ... I've finally tried to sort that out for powerpc and I can't find a way to make that work that isn't a complete pile of stinking shit. I'm very tempted to go back to my original idea: virtio itself should indicate it's "bypassing ability" via the virtio config space or some other bit (like the ProgIf of the PCI header etc...). I don't see how I can make it work otherwise. The problem with the statement "it's a platform matter" is that: ? - It's not entirely correct. It's actually a feature...

So ... I've finally tried to sort that out for powerpc and I can't find a way to make that work that isn't a complete pile of stinking shit. I'm very tempted to go back to my original idea: virtio itself should indicate it's "bypassing ability" via the virtio config space or some other bit (like the ProgIf of the PCI header etc...). I don't see how I can make it work otherwise. The problem with the statement "it's a platform matter" is that: ? - It's not entirely correct. It's actually a feature...

On Mon, 2015-11-09 at 16:46 -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > The problem here is that in some of the problematic cases the virtio > driver may not even be loaded.? If someone runs an L1 guest with an > IOMMU-bypassing virtio device and assigns it to L2 using vfio, then > *boom* L1 crashes.? (Same if, say, DPDK gets used, I think.) > > > > > The only way out of this while keeping the "platform" stuff would be to > > also bump some kind of version in the virtio config (or PCI hea...

On Mon, 2015-11-09 at 16:46 -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > The problem here is that in some of the problematic cases the virtio > driver may not even be loaded.? If someone runs an L1 guest with an > IOMMU-bypassing virtio device and assigns it to L2 using vfio, then > *boom* L1 crashes.? (Same if, say, DPDK gets used, I think.) > > > > > The only way out of this while keeping the "platform" stuff would be to > > also bump some kind of version in the virtio config (or PCI hea...

On Mon, 2015-11-09 at 21:35 -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > > We could do it the other way around: on powerpc, if a PCI device is in > that range and doesn't have the "bypass" property at all, then it's > assumed to bypass the IOMMU.??This means that everything that > currently works continues working.??If someone builds a physical > virtio device or uses

On Mon, 2015-11-09 at 21:35 -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > > We could do it the other way around: on powerpc, if a PCI device is in > that range and doesn't have the "bypass" property at all, then it's > assumed to bypass the IOMMU.??This means that everything that > currently works continues working.??If someone builds a physical > virtio device or uses

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Joshua Colp" <jcolp at digium.com> > To: "Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion" <asterisk-users at lists.digium.com> > Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2015 5:42:57 PM > Subject: Re: [asterisk-users] "Retransmission Timeout" results in dropped calls after 32 seconds > > Andrew Martin wrote:

On Mon, 2015-11-09 at 18:18 -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > > /* Qumranet donated their vendor ID for devices 0x1000 thru 0x10FF. > */ > static const struct pci_device_id virtio_pci_id_table[] = { > ??????? { PCI_DEVICE(0x1af4, PCI_ANY_ID) }, > ??????? { 0 } > }; > > Can we match on that range? We can, but the problem remains, how do we differenciate an existing

On Mon, 2015-11-09 at 18:18 -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > > /* Qumranet donated their vendor ID for devices 0x1000 thru 0x10FF. > */ > static const struct pci_device_id virtio_pci_id_table[] = { > ??????? { PCI_DEVICE(0x1af4, PCI_ANY_ID) }, > ??????? { 0 } > }; > > Can we match on that range? We can, but the problem remains, how do we differenciate an existing

Hi Kevin, Thanks for the comments On 19/03/18 10:03, Tian, Kevin wrote: > BYPASS feature bit is not covered in "2.3.1/2.3.2/2.3.3"". Is it > intended? In my opinion BYPASS is a bit different from the other features: while the others are needed for correctness, this one is optional and even if the guest supports BYPASS, it should be allowed not to accept it. For security

Hi Kevin, Thanks for the comments On 19/03/18 10:03, Tian, Kevin wrote: > BYPASS feature bit is not covered in "2.3.1/2.3.2/2.3.3"". Is it > intended? In my opinion BYPASS is a bit different from the other features: while the others are needed for correctness, this one is optional and even if the guest supports BYPASS, it should be allowed not to accept it. For security

On 2/21/2018 5:59 PM, Siwei Liu wrote: > On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 4:17 PM, Alexander Duyck > <alexander.duyck at gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 3:50 PM, Siwei Liu <loseweigh at gmail.com> wrote: >>> I haven't checked emails for days and did not realize the new revision >>> had already came out. And thank you for the effort, this revision

On 2/21/2018 5:59 PM, Siwei Liu wrote: > On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 4:17 PM, Alexander Duyck > <alexander.duyck at gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 3:50 PM, Siwei Liu <loseweigh at gmail.com> wrote: >>> I haven't checked emails for days and did not realize the new revision >>> had already came out. And thank you for the effort, this revision