| |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
xen-devel
[Xen-devel] RE: Request for backport of 82599 quirks to 3.4.2
Well they're both required to pass a VF device through to a guest and then have
the VF device properly reset via FLR when the guest is destroyed or shut down.
If the qemu quirk to allow pass through of the VF device is committed without
the associated quirk in pci.py to go ahead and issue and FLR then there is a
possibility that a VF device could be left in some unknown state. It's a low
probability I think but it does seem to exist.
- Greg
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ian Jackson [mailto:Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 10:36 AM
>To: Rose, Gregory V
>Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: Request for backport of 82599 quirks to 3.4.2
>
>Rose, Gregory V writes ("Request for backport of 82599 quirks
>to 3.4.2"):
>> commit a77dc89dde1b8b9331c0f746e34389d6a253755f
>> Author: Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Date: Tue Aug 4 15:28:14 2009 +0100
>>
>> passthrough: support the assignment of the VF of Intel
>82599 10GbE Controlle
>
>If I remember rightly this was a quirk of this particular card. I'd
>be quite fine with putting that in the 3.4.x branch.
>
>Just so we are clear: these two backports both serve the same purpose
>but as far as I can tell having either of them separately is no worse
>than having neither ? So there's no need to coordinate the change
>across the trees ?
>
>Thanks,
>Ian.
>
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
|
|
| |
|
Home