On Mon, 16 Feb 2015 10:05:24 +0100
"Michael S. Tsirkin" wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 09:50:17AM +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > On Sun, 15 Feb 2015 12:38:30 +0100
> > "Michael S. Tsirkin" wrote:
> >
> > > While I applied refactoring to s390 code as well, these patches
> > > are untested, an
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 09:50:17AM +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Feb 2015 12:38:30 +0100
> "Michael S. Tsirkin" wrote:
>
> > While I applied refactoring to s390 code as well, these patches
> > are untested, and aren't a mandatory part of the series.
> > Testing (even just build-test) r
On Sun, 15 Feb 2015 12:38:30 +0100
"Michael S. Tsirkin" wrote:
> While I applied refactoring to s390 code as well, these patches
> are untested, and aren't a mandatory part of the series.
> Testing (even just build-test) reports would be very much appreciated.
Do you have a branch around for tha
On 15 February 2015 at 11:38, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> This reuses virtio headers from files exported by linux.
> The current situation is quite messy: for example we
> have multiple copies of the virtio net packet structure,
> and the virtio ring structure.
> We already use some of them for li
On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 11:41:03AM +, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 15 February 2015 at 11:38, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > This reuses virtio headers from files exported by linux.
> > The current situation is quite messy: for example we
> > have multiple copies of the virtio net packet structure
This reuses virtio headers from files exported by linux.
The current situation is quite messy: for example we
have multiple copies of the virtio net packet structure,
and the virtio ring structure.
We already use some of them for linux-specific code,
reusing more widely gets rid of code duplication
