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:0.078 / U:0.068 seconds]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site