On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 10:49:38AM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-10-16 at 17:23 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 09:13:15AM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > > > There's no chance we ship e.g. q35 by mistake without this API: since
> > > > there is no way
On Tue, 2012-10-16 at 17:23 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 09:13:15AM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > > There's no chance we ship e.g. q35 by mistake without this API: since
> > > there is no way this specific assert can be missed in even basic
> > > testing:
> > >
>
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 09:13:15AM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > There's no chance we ship e.g. q35 by mistake without this API: since
> > there is no way this specific assert can be missed in even basic
> > testing:
> >
> > So I see it differently:
> >
> > As coded here:
> > chipset auth
On Tue, 2012-10-16 at 17:08 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 08:48:04AM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > On Tue, 2012-10-16 at 16:14 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 07:51:43AM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 2012-10-16 at 08:39
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 08:48:04AM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-10-16 at 16:14 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 07:51:43AM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2012-10-16 at 08:39 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 02:
On Tue, 2012-10-16 at 16:14 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 07:51:43AM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > On Tue, 2012-10-16 at 08:39 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 02:28:15PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > > > This makes use of the new l
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 07:51:43AM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-10-16 at 08:39 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 02:28:15PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > > This makes use of the new level irqfd support enabling bypass of
> > > qemu userspace both on IN
On Tue, 2012-10-16 at 08:39 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 02:28:15PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > This makes use of the new level irqfd support enabling bypass of
> > qemu userspace both on INTx injection and unmask. This significantly
> > boosts the performance o
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 02:28:15PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> This makes use of the new level irqfd support enabling bypass of
> qemu userspace both on INTx injection and unmask. This significantly
> boosts the performance of devices making use of legacy interrupts.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alex W
This makes use of the new level irqfd support enabling bypass of
qemu userspace both on INTx injection and unmask. This significantly
boosts the performance of devices making use of legacy interrupts.
Signed-off-by: Alex Williamson
---
My INTx routing workaround below will probably raise some e
10 matches
Mail list logo
