From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Ahern Subject: Re: help? need to enable VT-d for 2.6.27 Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 11:55:01 -0600 Message-ID: <4E5D23F5.3070905@gmail.com> References: <4E5D0FF3.6030705@genband.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Avi Kivity , mtosatti@redhat.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org To: Chris Friesen Return-path: Received: from mail-gx0-f174.google.com ([209.85.161.174]:61321 "EHLO mail-gx0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755851Ab1H3RzF (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Aug 2011 13:55:05 -0400 Received: by gxk21 with SMTP id 21so5846763gxk.19 for ; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 10:55:04 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4E5D0FF3.6030705@genband.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 08/30/2011 10:29 AM, Chris Friesen wrote: > > I'm in a bit of an odd situation. We run an embedded version of linux > on many different boards with different vendor agreements so it's > painful to upgrade kernel versions. > > I've been asked to provide VT-d support for KVM on our kernel (primarily > for mapping NIC VFs into the guests), and I'm trying to figure out my > best option to get a working implementation. I've had pains with VF passthrough with as late as a Fedora 14 kernel (2.6.35). Ended up punting and moving to 2.6.39. > > Looking at the kvm git tree, kvm-77 seems to be based off 2.6.27. Should > I look at porting that? By 2.6.27 do you mean WRL3 or something else? David > > Would I be better off just scanning for anything VT-d related in 2.6.28 > and backporting it? > > Are there any better options? Any advice you could provide would be > appreciated. > > Thanks, > Chris > >