[lkml]   [2010]   [May]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC][PATCH 0/12] KVM, x86, ppc, asm-generic: moving dirty bitmaps to user space
Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
> Hi, sorry for sending from my personal account.
> The following series are all from me:
> From: Takuya Yoshikawa <>
> The 3rd version of "moving dirty bitmaps to user space".
> From this version, we add x86 and ppc and asm-generic people to CC lists.
> [To KVM people]
> Sorry for being late to reply your comments.
> Avi,
> - I've wrote an answer to your question in patch 5/12: drivers/vhost/vhost.c .
> - I've considered to change the set_bit_user_non_atomic to an inline function,
> but did not change because the other helpers in the uaccess.h are written as
> macros. Anyway, I hope that x86 people will give us appropriate suggestions
> about this.
> - I thought that documenting about making bitmaps 64-bit aligned will be
> written when we add an API to register user-allocated bitmaps. So probably
> in the next series.
> Avi, Alex,
> - Could you check the ia64 and ppc parts, please? I tried to keep the logical
> changes as small as possible.
> I personally tried to build these with cross compilers. For ia64, I could check
> build success with my patch series. But book3s, even without my patch series,
> it failed with the following errors:
> arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_paired_singles.c: In function 'kvmppc_emulate_paired_single':
> arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_paired_singles.c:1289: error: the frame size of 2288 bytes is larger than 2048 bytes
> make[1]: *** [arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_paired_singles.o] Error 1
> make: *** [arch/powerpc/kvm] Error 2

This is bad. I haven't encountered that one at all so far, but I guess
my compiler version is different from yours. Sigh.

> About changelog: there are two main changes from the 2nd version:
> 1. I changed the treatment of clean slots (see patch 1/12).
> This was already applied today, thanks!
> 2. I changed the switch API. (see patch 11/12).
> To show this API's advantage, I also did a test (see the end of this mail).
> [To x86 people]
> Hi, Thomas, Ingo, Peter,
> Please review the patches 4,5/12. Because this is the first experience for
> me to send patches to x86, please tell me if this lacks anything.
> [To ppc people]
> Hi, Benjamin, Paul, Alex,
> Please see the patches 6,7/12. I first say sorry for that I've not tested these
> yet. In that sense, these may not be in the quality for precise reviews. But I
> will be happy if you would give me any comments.
> Alex, could you help me? Though I have a plan to get PPC box in the future,
> currently I cannot test these.

Could you please point me to a git tree where everything's readily
applied? That would make testing a lot easier.


 \ /
  Last update: 2010-05-12 10:15    [W:0.123 / U:0.808 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site