search for: unmake

On 2014-06-12 04:27, Rusty Russell wrote: > Henning Schild <henning.schild at siemens.com> writes: >> Hi, >> >> i am working on the jailhouse[1] project and am currently looking at >> inter-VM communication. We want to connect guests directly with virtual >> consoles based on shared memory. The code complexity in the hypervisor >> should be minimal, it

On 2014-06-12 04:27, Rusty Russell wrote: > Henning Schild <henning.schild at siemens.com> writes: >> Hi, >> >> i am working on the jailhouse[1] project and am currently looking at >> inter-VM communication. We want to connect guests directly with virtual >> consoles based on shared memory. The code complexity in the hypervisor >> should be minimal, it

I have been fighting with a system for a couple hours now to get it to work again and I finally did it. But I don't know why what was wrong keeps it from booting right. Here's what I have: I'm testing using Samba and LDAP as a PDC server. So I have a system that I configured with Samba, LDAP, pam_ldap, and nsswitch_ldap. I had it all configured and it was fine. However, after an

...ses with offsets > into a shared memory region associated with or part of a virtio > device. We would also need a way of defining the shared memory region. But that's not the problem. If such a feature is not accepted by the guest? How to you fall back? We don't add features which unmake the standard. > That would preserve zero-copy capabilities (as long as you can work > against the shared mem directly, e.g. doing DMA from a physical NIC or > storage device into it) and keep the hypervisor out of the loop. This seems ill thought out. How will you program a NIC via the...

...specialized hypervisors (often embedded, customized guests etc.). The shared memory regions could be exposed as a BARs (PCI) or additional address ranges (device tree) and addressed in the redefined guest address fields via some region index and offset. > > We don't add features which unmake the standard. > >> That would preserve zero-copy capabilities (as long as you can work >> against the shared mem directly, e.g. doing DMA from a physical NIC or >> storage device into it) and keep the hypervisor out of the loop. > > This seems ill thought out. How will...

...specialized hypervisors (often embedded, customized guests etc.). The shared memory regions could be exposed as a BARs (PCI) or additional address ranges (device tree) and addressed in the redefined guest address fields via some region index and offset. > > We don't add features which unmake the standard. > >> That would preserve zero-copy capabilities (as long as you can work >> against the shared mem directly, e.g. doing DMA from a physical NIC or >> storage device into it) and keep the hypervisor out of the loop. > > This seems ill thought out. How will...

Hi, I''m using SQL Server. I have a BIT field. I have a fix and a question. This is a patch for a bug in the SQL Server adapter that causes any insert or update to fail: lib/active_record/connection_adapters/sqlserver_adapter.rb @@ -239,2 +239,2 @@ - when TrueClass then (column && column.type == :boolean ? "''t''" : "1")

line 212 of postgresql_adapter.rb is return Time.now.to_s if value =~ /^\(''now''::text\)::(date|timestamp)/ i don''t think this will work. in postgresql the field ''now'' is pinned to the SAME TIME for the duration of a transaction. eg. if you do begin transaction; insert into t values(42, ''now''); # sleep one minute