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

    * Zachary Amsden <zach@vmware.com> 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).

    Ingo

    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);
    }
    +#endif

    static inline void raw_safe_halt(void)
    {

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2008-01-18 23:05    [W:0.042 / U:118.572 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site