From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Christian Tramnitz <chris.ace@gmx.net>
Subject: GFX pass-through patches
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 20:15:10 +0200
Message-ID: <hbq7fj$32h$1@ger.gmane.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
To: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

Hi Weidong,

are you planing to rebase the gfx passthrough to the current Xen 
unstable and release another version of the pBAR-vBAR patches?

After I've seen that most of the initial gfx-passthrough patches were 
accepted in Xen and ioemu-remote I've tried with just applying the 
BAR-patches but couldn't get gfx_passthrough=2 working anymore.
Actually it seems something is wrong with parsing the config file, as 
qemu complains about a disk statement "2" being invalid (it always 
complains about the value of gfx_passthrough in a disk context).

Have you verified that the patches that were accepted actually do what 
they are supposed to?


Thanks,
    Christian