This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
Home Products Support Community News


[Xen-devel] Re: [DOM0 KERNELS] pciback: Fix SR-IOV VF passthrough

To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxxxx>, "yu.zhao@xxxxxxxxx" <yu.zhao@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Xen-devel] Re: [DOM0 KERNELS] pciback: Fix SR-IOV VF passthrough
From: Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 09:45:26 +0000
Cc: Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Ian Pratt <Ian.Pratt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@xxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 01:48:34 -0800
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <4B8B91AF0200007800031C75@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index: Acq5HoN6g0R6GSU0SwC1F1qUaSJ99AABWgO7
Thread-topic: [DOM0 KERNELS] pciback: Fix SR-IOV VF passthrough
User-agent: Microsoft-Entourage/
On 01/03/2010 09:06, "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>> AFAIK, this patch should apply to any kernel that implements pciback: That
>> includes pv_ops, SLES, and the XS/XCP kernels. It should be applied to all
>> of them. It is already applied to linux-2.6.18-xen.hg as 998:693c40564c8d.
>> Signed-off-by: Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Some parts of this we had been given by Intel, but some were also
> implemented differently there. I'm reproducing the patch below, and
> I would appreciate clarification on the differences in the bar_read()/
> bar_write()/rom_write() vs. read_dev_bar() modifications.
> In any case I would think that the command_write() change would
> be generally applicable.

I never saw the Intel patch before. It looks fine to me.

 -- Keir

Xen-devel mailing list