> From: "Ted Unangst"
> Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2019 05:55:34 -0400
>
> Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > > Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2019 09:00:35 -0700
> > > From: Chris Cappuccio
> > >
> > > I think the current MSI-X implementation is a minimal skeleton,
> > > enough for some devices under virtualization. I don't
Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2019 09:00:35 -0700
> > From: Chris Cappuccio
> >
> > I think the current MSI-X implementation is a minimal skeleton,
> > enough for some devices under virtualization. I don't know if it's
> > enough for NVMe on real hardware.
>
> The main problem is th
> Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2019 09:00:35 -0700
> From: Chris Cappuccio
>
> I think the current MSI-X implementation is a minimal skeleton,
> enough for some devices under virtualization. I don't know if it's
> enough for NVMe on real hardware.
The main problem is that the MSI-X implementation has
machi
I think the current MSI-X implementation is a minimal skeleton, enough for some
devices under virtualization. I don't know if it's enough for NVMe on real
hardware.
Jason Tubnor [ja...@tubnor.net] wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Below is a patch that fixes an issue where NVMe storage is presented only
> via MSI
Hi,
Below is a patch that fixes an issue where NVMe storage is presented only
via MSI-X. This issue came about as the NVMe implementation in bhyve only
uses MSI-X.
Thanks to Chuck Tuffli for the initial patch. It was adjusted to deal with
with both cases.
Thank,
Jason Tubnor
Index: sys/dev/p
