On 08/01/2013 15:02, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Tue, Jan 08, 2013 at 10:56:54AM +0100, KONRAD Frédéric wrote:
On 07/01/2013 20:58, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 12:30:20PM +0100, KONRAD Frédéric wrote:
On 18/12/2012 12:01, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 a
On Tue, Jan 08, 2013 at 10:56:54AM +0100, KONRAD Frédéric wrote:
> On 07/01/2013 20:58, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 12:30:20PM +0100, KONRAD Frédéric wrote:
> >>On 18/12/2012 12:01, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >>>On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 10:33:37AM +, Peter Maydell wrote
On 07/01/2013 20:58, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 12:30:20PM +0100, KONRAD Frédéric wrote:
On 18/12/2012 12:01, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 10:33:37AM +, Peter Maydell wrote:
On 17 December 2012 15:45, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
Is the point to a
On Mon, Jan 07, 2013 at 04:50:44PM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> "Michael S. Tsirkin" writes:
>
> > On Mon, Jan 07, 2013 at 03:51:04PM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> >> "Michael S. Tsirkin" writes:
> >>
> >> > I guess you are saying we want to add bus= option to -net nic?
> >>
> >> I absolu
"Michael S. Tsirkin" writes:
> On Mon, Jan 07, 2013 at 03:51:04PM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>> "Michael S. Tsirkin" writes:
>>
>> > I guess you are saying we want to add bus= option to -net nic?
>>
>> I absolutely wouldn't object to that.
>>
>> But I can think of better solutions too. Li
On Mon, Jan 07, 2013 at 03:24:14PM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> "Michael S. Tsirkin" writes:
>
> > On Mon, Jan 07, 2013 at 02:12:23PM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> >> "Michael S. Tsirkin" writes:
> >>
> >> > On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 12:30:20PM +0100, KONRAD Frédéric wrote:
> >> >> On 18/12/
On Mon, Jan 07, 2013 at 03:51:04PM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> "Michael S. Tsirkin" writes:
>
> > I guess you are saying we want to add bus= option to -net nic?
>
> I absolutely wouldn't object to that.
>
> But I can think of better solutions too. Like:
>
> -virtio-net ...
>
> Regard
"Michael S. Tsirkin" writes:
> I guess you are saying we want to add bus= option to -net nic?
I absolutely wouldn't object to that.
But I can think of better solutions too. Like:
-virtio-net ...
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
>
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> > MST
On Mon, Jan 07, 2013 at 03:24:14PM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> "Michael S. Tsirkin" writes:
>
> > On Mon, Jan 07, 2013 at 02:12:23PM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> >> "Michael S. Tsirkin" writes:
> >>
> >> > On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 12:30:20PM +0100, KONRAD Frédéric wrote:
> >> >> On 18/12/
"Michael S. Tsirkin" writes:
> On Mon, Jan 07, 2013 at 08:02:32PM +, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> On 7 January 2013 19:58, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>> > On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 12:30:20PM +0100, KONRAD Frédéric wrote:
>> >> The modifications will be transparent to the user, as we will keep
>> >>
"Michael S. Tsirkin" writes:
> On Mon, Jan 07, 2013 at 02:12:23PM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>> "Michael S. Tsirkin" writes:
>>
>> > On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 12:30:20PM +0100, KONRAD Frédéric wrote:
>> >> On 18/12/2012 12:01, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>> >> >On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 10:33:37AM
On Mon, Jan 07, 2013 at 02:12:23PM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> "Michael S. Tsirkin" writes:
>
> > On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 12:30:20PM +0100, KONRAD Frédéric wrote:
> >> On 18/12/2012 12:01, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >> >On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 10:33:37AM +, Peter Maydell wrote:
> >> >>On
On Mon, Jan 07, 2013 at 08:02:32PM +, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 7 January 2013 19:58, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 12:30:20PM +0100, KONRAD Frédéric wrote:
> >> The modifications will be transparent to the user, as we will keep
> >> virtio-x-pci devices.
> >
> > Then w
"Michael S. Tsirkin" writes:
> On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 12:30:20PM +0100, KONRAD Frédéric wrote:
>> On 18/12/2012 12:01, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>> >On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 10:33:37AM +, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> >>On 17 December 2012 15:45, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>> >>>Is the point to all
"Michael S. Tsirkin" writes:
> On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 12:30:20PM +0100, KONRAD Frédéric wrote:
>> On 18/12/2012 12:01, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>> >On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 10:33:37AM +, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> >>On 17 December 2012 15:45, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>> >>>Is the point to all
On 7 January 2013 19:58, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 12:30:20PM +0100, KONRAD Frédéric wrote:
>> The modifications will be transparent to the user, as we will keep
>> virtio-x-pci devices.
>
> Then what's the point of all this?
>
> -device virtio-pci,id=transport1 -device v
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 12:30:20PM +0100, KONRAD Frédéric wrote:
> On 18/12/2012 12:01, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 10:33:37AM +, Peter Maydell wrote:
> >>On 17 December 2012 15:45, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >>>Is the point to allow virtio-mmio? Why can't virtio-mmi
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 03:59:59PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > It does seem frankly bizarre that adding a new transport requires
> > knowing about all the backends (notice how s390-virtio-bus.c has
> > to register types for each backend). The kernel gets the transport
> > vs backend separation
Il 18/12/2012 15:56, Peter Maydell ha scritto:
> On 18 December 2012 14:36, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> Yes, that's true. And you're basically using virtio as the pluggable
>> discoverable bus, which is actually a pretty good idea.
>>
>> However, what you are doing is very similar to what virtio-s390
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 02:56:58PM +, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > True, it is not pure qdev, but it is much simpler and doesn't require
> > convincing grumpy maintainers. :)
>
> I'm not actually personally all that attached to this design -- it's just
> trying to implement a suggestion by Anthony
On 18 December 2012 14:36, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Yes, that's true. And you're basically using virtio as the pluggable
> discoverable bus, which is actually a pretty good idea.
>
> However, what you are doing is very similar to what virtio-s390 does,
> and it manages to do it just fine with the e
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 02:00:11PM +, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 18 December 2012 13:10, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > And what makes virtio so special anyway? e1000 can be used without
> > exposing users to internal buses and all kind of nastiness like this.
>
> Congratulations, you're using
Il 18/12/2012 15:00, Peter Maydell ha scritto:
> On 18 December 2012 13:10, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>> > And what makes virtio so special anyway? e1000 can be used without
>> > exposing users to internal buses and all kind of nastiness like this.
> Congratulations, you're using an architecture t
On 18 December 2012 13:10, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> And what makes virtio so special anyway? e1000 can be used without
> exposing users to internal buses and all kind of nastiness like this.
Congratulations, you're using an architecture that has a pluggable
discoverable bus implemented by just
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 12:30:20PM +0100, KONRAD Frédéric wrote:
> On 18/12/2012 12:01, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 10:33:37AM +, Peter Maydell wrote:
> >>On 17 December 2012 15:45, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >>>Is the point to allow virtio-mmio? Why can't virtio-mmi
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 12:06:39PM +, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 18 December 2012 11:50, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > Il 18/12/2012 12:26, Peter Maydell ha scritto:
> >> On 18 December 2012 11:01, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >>> This is what I am saying: create your own bus and put
> >>> your devi
On 18 December 2012 11:50, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 18/12/2012 12:26, Peter Maydell ha scritto:
>> On 18 December 2012 11:01, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>> This is what I am saying: create your own bus and put
>>> your devices there.
>>
>> What bus?
>
> A virtio bus like the one in these patches
Il 18/12/2012 12:26, Peter Maydell ha scritto:
> On 18 December 2012 11:01, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>> This is what I am saying: create your own bus and put
>> your devices there.
>
> What bus?
A virtio bus like the one in these patches. But mst is suggesting to
leave virtio.c aside, and only
On 18/12/2012 12:01, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 10:33:37AM +, Peter Maydell wrote:
On 17 December 2012 15:45, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
Is the point to allow virtio-mmio? Why can't virtio-mmio be just
another bus, like a pci bus, and another binding, like the virtio
On 18 December 2012 11:01, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> This is what I am saying: create your own bus and put
> your devices there.
What bus?
-- PMM
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 10:33:37AM +, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 17 December 2012 15:45, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > Is the point to allow virtio-mmio? Why can't virtio-mmio be just
> > another bus, like a pci bus, and another binding, like the virtio-pci
> > binding?
>
> (a) the current co
On 17 December 2012 15:45, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> Is the point to allow virtio-mmio? Why can't virtio-mmio be just
> another bus, like a pci bus, and another binding, like the virtio-pci
> binding?
(a) the current code is really not very nice because it's not
actually a proper set of QOM/qd
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 06:13:28PM +0100, KONRAD Frédéric wrote:
> On 17/12/2012 16:45, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >On Fri, Dec 07, 2012 at 02:32:29PM +0100, fred.kon...@greensocs.com wrote:
> >>From: KONRAD Frederic
> >>
> >>You can clone that from here :
> >>git.greensocs.com/home/greensocs/git
On 17/12/2012 16:45, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Fri, Dec 07, 2012 at 02:32:29PM +0100, fred.kon...@greensocs.com wrote:
From: KONRAD Frederic
You can clone that from here :
git.greensocs.com/home/greensocs/git/qemu_virtio.git virtio_refactoring_v6
The problem with the last RFC v5 was that v
On Fri, Dec 07, 2012 at 02:32:29PM +0100, fred.kon...@greensocs.com wrote:
> From: KONRAD Frederic
>
> You can clone that from here :
> git.greensocs.com/home/greensocs/git/qemu_virtio.git virtio_refactoring_v6
>
> The problem with the last RFC v5 was that virtio-blk refactoring broke
> virtio-b
From: KONRAD Frederic
You can clone that from here :
git.greensocs.com/home/greensocs/git/qemu_virtio.git virtio_refactoring_v6
The problem with the last RFC v5 was that virtio-blk refactoring broke
virtio-blk-pci device ( SEGFAULT ). So I modify this last step to fix that
issue.
In order to no
36 matches
Mail list logo
