On 24/09/15 06:09, David Gibson wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 08:12:30PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
>> On Thu, 2015-09-24 at 11:11 +1000, David Gibson wrote:
>>> On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 11:28:29AM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
On Sat, 2015-09-19 at 17:18 +1000, David Gibson wrote:
>
On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 08:12:30PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-09-24 at 11:11 +1000, David Gibson wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 11:28:29AM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2015-09-19 at 17:18 +1000, David Gibson wrote:
> > > > At present the code handling IBM's Enha
On Thu, 2015-09-24 at 11:11 +1000, David Gibson wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 11:28:29AM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > On Sat, 2015-09-19 at 17:18 +1000, David Gibson wrote:
> > > At present the code handling IBM's Enhanced Error Handling (EEH) interface
> > > on VFIO devices operates by byp
On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 11:28:29AM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Sat, 2015-09-19 at 17:18 +1000, David Gibson wrote:
> > At present the code handling IBM's Enhanced Error Handling (EEH) interface
> > on VFIO devices operates by bypassing the usual VFIO logic with
> > vfio_container_ioctl(). T
On Sat, 2015-09-19 at 17:18 +1000, David Gibson wrote:
> At present the code handling IBM's Enhanced Error Handling (EEH) interface
> on VFIO devices operates by bypassing the usual VFIO logic with
> vfio_container_ioctl(). That's a poorly designed interface with unclear
> semantics about exactly
At present the code handling IBM's Enhanced Error Handling (EEH) interface
on VFIO devices operates by bypassing the usual VFIO logic with
vfio_container_ioctl(). That's a poorly designed interface with unclear
semantics about exactly what can be operated on.
As a first step to cleaning that up,
