similar to: [PATCH 0/6] virtio with config abstraction and ring implementation

I'm not reposting the drivers this time since they haven't changed significantly. See http://lguest.ozlabs.org/patches for the whole thing, from new-io.patch onwards). Changes since last version: - Switch to our own bus implementation, rather than relying on an implementation-specific bus to back this up. - Make virtio_config_ops much higher-level, don't assume layout of

I'm not reposting the drivers this time since they haven't changed significantly. See http://lguest.ozlabs.org/patches for the whole thing, from new-io.patch onwards). Changes since last version: - Switch to our own bus implementation, rather than relying on an implementation-specific bus to back this up. - Make virtio_config_ops much higher-level, don't assume layout of

Since we want to reset the device to remove them, this is simpler (device is reset for us on driver remove). Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au> --- drivers/net/virtio_net.c | 44 +++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------- 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-) diff -r 7e5b3ff06f60 drivers/net/virtio_net.c --- a/drivers/net/virtio_net.c Wed Jan 23 22:53:14

Since we want to reset the device to remove them, this is simpler (device is reset for us on driver remove). Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au> --- drivers/net/virtio_net.c | 44 +++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------- 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-) diff -r 7e5b3ff06f60 drivers/net/virtio_net.c --- a/drivers/net/virtio_net.c Wed Jan 23 22:53:14

Hi Dave, Nice driver optimization from Shirley, but requires a new virtio hook. Do you want to take both? I have nothing else overlapping it. Cheers, Rusty.

Hi Dave, Nice driver optimization from Shirley, but requires a new virtio hook. Do you want to take both? I have nothing else overlapping it. Cheers, Rusty.

virtqueue ops were introduced in the hope that we'll have multiple implementations besides virtio_ring, but none have surfaced so far, and given that existing virtio ring is deployed in production we are likely stuck with it now, so this layer just adds complexity and overhead. Further, the need to pass vq twice to each call (as in dev->vq->vq_ops->kick(dev->vq) ) adds potential

virtqueue ops were introduced in the hope that we'll have multiple implementations besides virtio_ring, but none have surfaced so far, and given that existing virtio ring is deployed in production we are likely stuck with it now, so this layer just adds complexity and overhead. Further, the need to pass vq twice to each call (as in dev->vq->vq_ops->kick(dev->vq) ) adds potential

Rusty, Anthony, Dor, I need your brain power :-) On smp guests I have seen a problem with virtio (the version in curent Avi's git) which do not occur on single processor guests: kernel BUG at /space/kvm/drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c:228! illegal operation: 0001 [#1] Modules linked in: ipv6 CPU: 2 Not tainted Process swapper (pid: 0, task: 000000000f83e038, ksp: 000000000f877d70) Krnl

Rusty, Anthony, Dor, I need your brain power :-) On smp guests I have seen a problem with virtio (the version in curent Avi's git) which do not occur on single processor guests: kernel BUG at /space/kvm/drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c:228! illegal operation: 0001 [#1] Modules linked in: ipv6 CPU: 2 Not tainted Process swapper (pid: 0, task: 000000000f83e038, ksp: 000000000f877d70) Krnl

This patch series implements a PCI driver for virtio. This allows virtio devices (like block and network) to be used in QEMU/KVM. I'll post a very early KVM userspace backend in kvm-devel for those that are interested. This series depends on the two virtio fixes I've posted and Rusty's config_ops refactoring. I've tested with these patches on Rusty's experimental virtio

This patch series implements a PCI driver for virtio. This allows virtio devices (like block and network) to be used in QEMU/KVM. I'll post a very early KVM userspace backend in kvm-devel for those that are interested. This series depends on the two virtio fixes I've posted and Rusty's config_ops refactoring. I've tested with these patches on Rusty's experimental virtio

Hello, The following patches are a solution to a problem we have encountered when using the Xen hypervisor: - Need Pxx/Cxx states to save on power consumption when using Xen (we do want those datacenters to consume less power!), - Also need to figure out the Turbo mode so that the scheduler can properly boost a core for CPU bound guests. In essence the Xen hypervisor requires that

On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 11:48:41AM +0800, Wei Wang wrote: > On 07/23/2017 09:45 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 03:12:43PM +0800, Wei Wang wrote: > > > On 07/14/2017 04:19 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 03:42:35PM +0800, Wei Wang wrote: > > > > > On 07/12/2017 09:56 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:

On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 11:48:41AM +0800, Wei Wang wrote: > On 07/23/2017 09:45 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 03:12:43PM +0800, Wei Wang wrote: > > > On 07/14/2017 04:19 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 03:42:35PM +0800, Wei Wang wrote: > > > > > On 07/12/2017 09:56 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:

On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 2:10 AM, Jochen Wilhelmy <j.wilhelmy at arcor.de> wrote: > Hi! > > while trying to use llvm::DominatorTreeBase on a custom graph that > has nothing to do with llvm::BasicBlock I ran into some difficulties, > because llvm::DominatorTreeBase calls e.g. getParent()->front() > directly on the nodes and uses llvm::Inverse which forced me to >

Dear all, I read across Asterisk's lists archives, and found out various discussions about how nice it would be to have a (SQL) database abstraction layer enabling the use of various SQL backends, for various purposes inside of Asterisk. As far as I see, there is no such thing yet, although there are various efforts (on CDR and voicemail, mostly) to use external databases. As I'm

So I am reading through , and am wondering what is the difference between <hostdev mode='subsystem' type='pci' managed='yes'> <hostdev> and <interface type='hostdev' managed='yes'> </interface> if I am trying to give full access to a NIC? Which one exposes more of the card? On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 1:13 PM Mauricio Tavares

On 04/07/2010 08:10 PM, Jochen Wilhelmy wrote: > Hi! > > while trying to use llvm::DominatorTreeBase on a custom graph that > has nothing to do with llvm::BasicBlock I ran into some difficulties, > because llvm::DominatorTreeBase calls e.g. getParent()->front() > directly on the nodes Yes this is a problem. However how is it related to your proposal? Do you want to add a

When you pass a device in the pci chain (after virsh nodedev-dettach'ing it from host) to the guest, how much is passed without being emulated/abstracted?