On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 10:16:01AM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-01-20 at 19:04 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 09:45:25AM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2014-01-20 at 11:20 -0500, Mike Day wrote:
> > > > Do you know which device is writing t
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 09:45:25AM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-01-20 at 11:20 -0500, Mike Day wrote:
> > Do you know which device is writing to the BAR below? From the trace
> > it appears it should be restoring the memory address to the BAR after
> > writing all 1s to the BAR and
On Mon, 2014-01-20 at 19:04 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 09:45:25AM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > On Mon, 2014-01-20 at 11:20 -0500, Mike Day wrote:
> > > Do you know which device is writing to the BAR below? From the trace
> > > it appears it should be restoring t
On Mon, 2014-01-20 at 11:20 -0500, Mike Day wrote:
> Do you know which device is writing to the BAR below? From the trace
> it appears it should be restoring the memory address to the BAR after
> writing all 1s to the BAR and reading back the contents. (the protocol
> for finding the length of the
Do you know which device is writing to the BAR below? From the trace
it appears it should be restoring the memory address to the BAR after
writing all 1s to the BAR and reading back the contents. (the protocol
for finding the length of the bar memory.)
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 12:24 PM, Alex William
On 01/15/2014 01:05 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 08:50:54AM -0500, Mike Day wrote:
>>
>> "Michael S. Tsirkin" writes:
>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 08:31:36AM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
>>
>>> Short term, just assume 48 bits on x86.
>>>
>>> We need to figure out what
>>
>> The address above has already been masked. What you need to do is read
>> the BAR. If the value from the BAR end in '1', its MMIO. If it ends in
>> '10', its RAM. If it ends in '0n' its disabled. The first thing that
>> the PCI software does after reading the BAR is mask off the two low
>> bi
On Tue, 2014-01-14 at 12:55 -0500, Mike Day wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 12:49 PM, Mike Day wrote:
> >>> > > >>>
> >>> > > > Prior to this change, there was no re-map with the
> >>> > > > febe
> >
> >> If we choose not to map them, how do we distinguish them fr
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 12:49 PM, Mike Day wrote:
>>> > > >>>
>>> > > > Prior to this change, there was no re-map with the
>>> > > > febe
>
>> If we choose not to map them, how do we distinguish them from guest RAM?
>> There's no MemoryRegion flag that I'm aware of
>> > > >>>
>> > > > Prior to this change, there was no re-map with the
>> > > > febe
> If we choose not to map them, how do we distinguish them from guest RAM?
> There's no MemoryRegion flag that I'm aware of to distinguish a ram_ptr
> that points to a chunk of gue
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 09:39:24AM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-01-14 at 18:18 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 09:15:14AM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2014-01-14 at 18:03 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 08:
On Tue, 2014-01-14 at 18:18 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 09:15:14AM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > On Tue, 2014-01-14 at 18:03 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 08:57:58AM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 2014-01-14 at 14:07
On Tue, 2014-01-14 at 18:03 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 08:57:58AM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > On Tue, 2014-01-14 at 14:07 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 03:48:11PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 2014-01-13 at 22:48
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 08:36:27AM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-01-14 at 12:24 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> > On 01/14/2014 12:48 AM, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2014-01-13 at 22:48 +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
> > >>> Am 13.01.2014 um 22:39 schrieb Alex Williamson
> > >>> :
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 09:15:14AM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-01-14 at 18:03 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 08:57:58AM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2014-01-14 at 14:07 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 03:
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 08:49:39AM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-01-14 at 14:21 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 02:39:04PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > > On Sun, 2014-01-12 at 16:03 +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
> > > > On 12.01.2014, at 08:54, Michae
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 08:57:58AM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-01-14 at 14:07 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 03:48:11PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2014-01-13 at 22:48 +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Am 13.01.2014 um 22:
On Tue, 2014-01-14 at 14:07 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 03:48:11PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > On Mon, 2014-01-13 at 22:48 +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
> > >
> > > > Am 13.01.2014 um 22:39 schrieb Alex Williamson
> > > > :
> > > >
> > > >> On Sun, 2014-01-12
On Tue, 2014-01-14 at 14:21 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 02:39:04PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > On Sun, 2014-01-12 at 16:03 +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
> > > On 12.01.2014, at 08:54, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 08:31:36AM -0
On Tue, 2014-01-14 at 12:24 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 01/14/2014 12:48 AM, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > On Mon, 2014-01-13 at 22:48 +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
> >>> Am 13.01.2014 um 22:39 schrieb Alex Williamson
> >>> :
> >>>
> On Sun, 2014-01-12 at 16:03 +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
> >>
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 9:05 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 08:50:54AM -0500, Mike Day wrote:
>>
>> Also, both 32-bit and 64-bit BARs are required to be supported. It is
>> legal to construct a 64-bit BAR by masking all the high bits to
>> zero. Presumably it would be OK
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 08:50:54AM -0500, Mike Day wrote:
>
> "Michael S. Tsirkin" writes:
>
> > On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 08:31:36AM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
>
> > Short term, just assume 48 bits on x86.
> >
> > We need to figure out what's the limitation on ppc and arm -
> > maybe there's
"Michael S. Tsirkin" writes:
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 08:31:36AM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> Short term, just assume 48 bits on x86.
>
> We need to figure out what's the limitation on ppc and arm -
> maybe there's none and it can address full 64 bit range.
>
> Cc some people who might know
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 02:39:04PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Sun, 2014-01-12 at 16:03 +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
> > On 12.01.2014, at 08:54, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 08:31:36AM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > >> On Fri, 2014-01-10 at 14:55 +0200, M
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 03:48:11PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-01-13 at 22:48 +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
> >
> > > Am 13.01.2014 um 22:39 schrieb Alex Williamson
> > > :
> > >
> > >> On Sun, 2014-01-12 at 16:03 +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
> > >>> On 12.01.2014, at 08:54, Mich
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 12:24:24PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 01/14/2014 12:48 AM, Alex Williamson wrote:
> >On Mon, 2014-01-13 at 22:48 +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
> >>>Am 13.01.2014 um 22:39 schrieb Alex Williamson
> >>>:
> >>>
> On Sun, 2014-01-12 at 16:03 +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 10:20:57AM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
> On 14.01.2014, at 09:18, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 10:48:21PM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> Am 13.01.2014 um 22:39 schrieb Alex Williamson
> >>> :
> >>>
> On Sun, 2014-01-12
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 10:20:57AM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
> On 14.01.2014, at 09:18, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 10:48:21PM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> Am 13.01.2014 um 22:39 schrieb Alex Williamson
> >>> :
> >>>
> On Sun, 2014-01-12
On 01/14/2014 12:48 AM, Alex Williamson wrote:
On Mon, 2014-01-13 at 22:48 +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
Am 13.01.2014 um 22:39 schrieb Alex Williamson :
On Sun, 2014-01-12 at 16:03 +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 12.01.2014, at 08:54, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 08:31
On 14 January 2014 09:20, Alexander Graf wrote:
> Of course there's potential for future extensions to allow for more
> bits in the future, but at least the current generation x86_64 (and x86)
> specification clearly only supports 52 bits of physical address space.
> And non-x86(_64) don't care ab
On 14.01.2014, at 09:18, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 10:48:21PM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Am 13.01.2014 um 22:39 schrieb Alex Williamson :
>>>
On Sun, 2014-01-12 at 16:03 +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
> On 12.01.2014, at 08:54, Michael S. Tsirkin
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 10:48:21PM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
>
> > Am 13.01.2014 um 22:39 schrieb Alex Williamson :
> >
> >> On Sun, 2014-01-12 at 16:03 +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
> >>> On 12.01.2014, at 08:54, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >>>
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 08:31:36AM -0
On Mon, 2014-01-13 at 22:48 +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
> > Am 13.01.2014 um 22:39 schrieb Alex Williamson :
> >
> >> On Sun, 2014-01-12 at 16:03 +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
> >>> On 12.01.2014, at 08:54, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >>>
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 08:31:36AM -0700, Alex
> Am 13.01.2014 um 22:39 schrieb Alex Williamson :
>
>> On Sun, 2014-01-12 at 16:03 +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>> On 12.01.2014, at 08:54, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>>
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 08:31:36AM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-01-10 at 14:55 +0200, Michael S.
On Sun, 2014-01-12 at 16:03 +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
> On 12.01.2014, at 08:54, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 08:31:36AM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> >> On Fri, 2014-01-10 at 14:55 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 03:42:22PM -0700, Al
On 12.01.2014, at 08:54, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 08:31:36AM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
>> On Fri, 2014-01-10 at 14:55 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 03:42:22PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
On Thu, 2014-01-09 at 23:56 +0200, Micha
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 08:31:36AM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-01-10 at 14:55 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 03:42:22PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2014-01-09 at 23:56 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 12:
On Fri, 2014-01-10 at 14:55 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 03:42:22PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > On Thu, 2014-01-09 at 23:56 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 12:03:26PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 2014-01-09 at 11:47
On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 03:42:22PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-01-09 at 23:56 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 12:03:26PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2014-01-09 at 11:47 -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 2014-01-09 at 20:00 +0
On Thu, 2014-01-09 at 23:56 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 12:03:26PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > On Thu, 2014-01-09 at 11:47 -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2014-01-09 at 20:00 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 10:24:47AM
On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 12:03:26PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-01-09 at 11:47 -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > On Thu, 2014-01-09 at 20:00 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 10:24:47AM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 2013-12-11 at 20:30 +0
On Thu, 2014-01-09 at 11:47 -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-01-09 at 20:00 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 10:24:47AM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2013-12-11 at 20:30 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > From: Paolo Bonzini
> > > >
> >
On Thu, 2014-01-09 at 20:00 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 10:24:47AM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > On Wed, 2013-12-11 at 20:30 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > From: Paolo Bonzini
> > >
> > > As an alternative to commit 818f86b (exec: limit system memory
> >
On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 10:24:47AM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-12-11 at 20:30 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > From: Paolo Bonzini
> >
> > As an alternative to commit 818f86b (exec: limit system memory
> > size, 2013-11-04) let's just make all address spaces 64-bit wide.
> >
On Wed, 2013-12-11 at 20:30 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> From: Paolo Bonzini
>
> As an alternative to commit 818f86b (exec: limit system memory
> size, 2013-11-04) let's just make all address spaces 64-bit wide.
> This eliminates problems with phys_page_find ignoring bits above
> TARGET_PHY
From: Paolo Bonzini
As an alternative to commit 818f86b (exec: limit system memory
size, 2013-11-04) let's just make all address spaces 64-bit wide.
This eliminates problems with phys_page_find ignoring bits above
TARGET_PHYS_ADDR_SPACE_BITS and address_space_translate_internal
consequently messi
46 matches
Mail list logo