lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Jan]   [18]   [last100]   RSS-feed
Views: [more markup]  [less markup]  [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Complete thread (EXPERIMENTAL)
/
DateFri, 18 Jan 2008 23:24:51 -0200
From"Glauber de Oliveira Costa" <>
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/10] Tree fixes for PARAVIRT
Digg This
On Jan 18, 2008 8:02 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:

* 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

Other than this, it seems to build and boot fine.

Do you want me to resend ?
-- 
Glauber de Oliveira Costa.
"Free as in Freedom"
http://glommer.net

"The less confident you are, the more serious you have to act."


\
ISP Services
Valid XHTML 1.0!\ /
Valid CSS! Last update: 2008-01-19 01:27    [W:10.568 / U:0.070 seconds]
©2003-2005 Jasper Spaans