[lkml]   [2008]   [Jan]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    Patch in this message
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/10] Tree fixes for PARAVIRT

    * Zachary Amsden <> wrote:

    > > but in exchange you broke all of 32-bit with CONFIG_PARAVIRT=y.
    > > Which means you did not even build-test it on 32-bit, let alone boot
    > > test it...
    > Why are we rushing so much to do 64-bit paravirt that we are breaking
    > working configurations? If the developement is going to be this
    > chaotic, it should be done and tested out of tree until it can
    > stabilize.

    what you see is a open feedback cycle conducted on lkml. People send
    patches for arch/x86, and we tell them if it breaks something. The bug
    was found before i pushed out the x86.git devel tree (and the fix is
    below - but this shouldnt matter to you because the bug never hit a
    public x86.git tree).


    Index: linux/include/asm-x86/paravirt.h
    --- linux.orig/include/asm-x86/paravirt.h
    +++ linux/include/asm-x86/paravirt.h
    @@ -619,6 +619,7 @@ static inline void write_cr4(unsigned lo
    PVOP_VCALL1(pv_cpu_ops.write_cr4, x);

    +#ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
    static inline unsigned long read_cr8(void)
    return PVOP_CALL0(unsigned long, pv_cpu_ops.read_cr8);
    @@ -628,6 +629,7 @@ static inline void write_cr8(unsigned lo
    PVOP_VCALL1(pv_cpu_ops.write_cr8, x);

    static inline void raw_safe_halt(void)

     \ /
      Last update: 2008-01-18 23:05    [W:0.025 / U:14.028 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site