On 13.12.2023 15:44, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
> On 2023-12-12 10:53, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 12.12.2023 10:12, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
>>> On 2023-12-12 02:42, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Mon, 11 Dec 2023, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
> The "return 0" after the swich statement in
On 14.12.2023 03:05, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Dec 2023, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 11.12.2023 10:14, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
>>> --- a/xen/arch/arm/include/asm/numa.h
>>> +++ b/xen/arch/arm/include/asm/numa.h
>>> @@ -2,8 +2,9 @@
>>> #define __ARCH_ARM_NUMA_H
>>>
>>> #include
>>
>>
On 2023/12/13 20:12, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 03:31:21AM +, Chen, Jiqian wrote:
>> On 2023/12/12 17:18, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
>>> On Tue, Dec 12, 2023 at 06:34:27AM +, Chen, Jiqian wrote:
On 2023/12/12 01:57, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 11,
Hello Elliott.
In my experiment I've used FreeBSD 13.2-RELEASE. Do you think that it will
work if I use a previous version,let's say 12.04 ?
On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 10:01 PM Elliott Mitchell
wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 11, 2023 at 01:41:21PM -0500, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote:
> > On 12/11/2023 12:59 PM,
On Wed, 13 Dec 2023, dpsmith.dev wrote:
> While this survey may have been released with the best of intentions, I can't
> help but to find it poorly conceived. Banning words, whether in general or for
> a specific instance, is not something to be taken lightly via "informal vote",
> and in my
flight 184119 libvirt real [real]
http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/184119/
Failures :-/ but no regressions.
Tests which did not succeed, but are not blocking:
test-armhf-armhf-libvirt-raw 15 saverestore-support-check fail blocked in
184099
test-armhf-armhf-libvirt 16
On Wed, 13 Dec 2023, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 07:03:10PM -0800, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > On Tue, 28 Nov 2023, Roger Pau Monne wrote:
> > > Introduce a new gitlab tests for livepatching, using
> > > livepatch-build-tools,
> > > which better reflects how downstreams
flight 184121 xen-4.18-testing real [real]
http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/184121/
Regressions :-(
Tests which did not succeed and are blocking,
including tests which could not be run:
build-arm64-pvops 6 kernel-build fail REGR. vs. 184105
Tests which
On Wed, 13 Dec 2023, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 11.12.2023 10:14, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
> > --- a/xen/arch/arm/include/asm/numa.h
> > +++ b/xen/arch/arm/include/asm/numa.h
> > @@ -2,8 +2,9 @@
> > #define __ARCH_ARM_NUMA_H
> >
> > #include
>
> With this, ...
>
> > +#include
> >
> > -typedef
flight 184117 linux-linus real [real]
http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/184117/
Regressions :-(
Tests which did not succeed and are blocking,
including tests which could not be run:
build-i386-pvops 6 kernel-build fail REGR. vs. 183973
Tests which did
This patch series is a follow up for the dicsussion at [1].
It adds ability for toolstack to chose Device part of SBDF for a PCI
device when passing it to DomU. First and last patches are quite
straightforward, but the second one ("tools: libxc: add virtual_sbdf
parameter to xc_assign_device")
Now, when "assign_device" domctl supports providing a virtual SBDF, we
can leverage "vslot" option from PCI_SPEC_STRING and pass user
requested function number to the hypervisor.
Signed-off-by: Volodymyr Babchuk
---
tools/libs/light/libxl_pci.c | 7 ++-
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1
Now, when "assign_device" domctl supports virtual_sbdf option, make it
available to libxc users. This is an optional parameter, if it is not
provided, xc_assign_device() will ask hypervisor to allocate a free
vSBDF.
Signed-off-by: Volodymyr Babchuk
--
This clearly breaks libxc API. So I wanted
With CONFIG_HAS_VPCI_GUEST_SUPPORT enabled, hypervisor will assign a
passed-through PCI device to a guest using virtual/guest SBDF
number. Right now hypervisor automatically allocates next free
SBDF. But there are cases mentioned in [1] when user should be able to
control SBDF assigned to the
flight 184114 xen-unstable real [real]
flight 184130 xen-unstable real-retest [real]
http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/184114/
http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/184130/
Regressions :-(
Tests which did not succeed and are blocking,
including tests which could not be
On Mon, Dec 11, 2023 at 01:41:21PM -0500, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote:
> On 12/11/2023 12:59 PM, Mario Marietto wrote:
> > root@marietto:/mnt/zroot2/zroot2/OS/Chromebook/domU/freebsd-xen/boot-xen/kernel
> > # file
> > /mnt/zroot2/zroot2/OS/Chromebook/domU/freebsd-xen/boot-xen/kernel/kernel
> >
> >
https://build.opensuse.org/request/show/1126240
Signed-off-by: Olaf Hering
---
automation/build/suse/opensuse-tumbleweed.dockerfile | 2 --
1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/automation/build/suse/opensuse-tumbleweed.dockerfile
b/automation/build/suse/opensuse-tumbleweed.dockerfile
flight 184128 xen-unstable-smoke real [real]
http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/184128/
Failures :-/ but no regressions.
Tests which did not succeed, but are not blocking:
test-amd64-amd64-libvirt 15 migrate-support-checkfail never pass
test-arm64-arm64-xl-xsm
Hi Jan,
On 13/12/2023 11:26, Jan Beulich wrote:
It's all the same for the 3 arch-es which have it, and RISC-V would
introduce a 4th instance. Put it in xen/smp.h instead, while still
permitting asm/smp.h to define a custom variant if need be.
Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich
Acked-by: Julien
Pipeline #1105839214 has passed!
Project: xen ( https://gitlab.com/xen-project/xen )
Branch: staging ( https://gitlab.com/xen-project/xen/-/commits/staging )
Commit: 75571e16 (
https://gitlab.com/xen-project/xen/-/commit/75571e162b78b73401307ce40f732021ae57d49a
)
Commit Message: xen/arm:
Hi Jan,
On 12/13/23 5:26 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> It's all the same for the 3 arch-es which have it, and RISC-V would
> introduce a 4th instance. Put it in xen/smp.h instead, while still
> permitting asm/smp.h to define a custom variant if need be.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich
>
Acked-by:
Pipeline #1105839143 has passed!
Project: xen ( https://gitlab.com/xen-project/xen )
Branch: stable-4.16 ( https://gitlab.com/xen-project/xen/-/commits/stable-4.16 )
Commit: e7c3d6ce (
https://gitlab.com/xen-project/xen/-/commit/e7c3d6ceaf73120098f9213fd12f79fd50e8e588
)
Commit Message:
On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 04:39:04PM +, Ross Lagerwall wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 11, 2023 at 10:42 AM Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 06, 2023 at 12:11:39PM +, Ross Lagerwall wrote:
> > > On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 2:57 PM Roger Pau Monné
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Dec 05,
ping?
On 14/11/23 17:31, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
Hi,
While looking at Xen target-specific code, I noticed some
generic code used by x86 which is not implemented for ARM.
Maybe ARM machines don't need it, I don't know. But I
wanted to see if I can get this common code target agnostic
and
On Wed, 2023-12-13 at 12:26 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> It's all the same for the 3 arch-es which have it, and RISC-V would
> introduce a 4th instance. Put it in xen/smp.h instead, while still
> permitting asm/smp.h to define a custom variant if need be.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich
>
> ---
On Mon, Dec 11, 2023 at 10:42 AM Roger Pau Monné wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 06, 2023 at 12:11:39PM +, Ross Lagerwall wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 2:57 PM Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Dec 05, 2023 at 02:15:05PM +, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> > > > On 05/12/2023 12:34 pm, Roger
On Tue, Dec 12, 2023 at 12:00:12PM +0100, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 08, 2023 at 04:02:23PM +, Anthony PERARD wrote:
> > CONFIG_X86_GENERIC=y and fixes around arch specific config values.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Anthony PERARD (3):
> > create_build_jobs: Set reset
flight 184108 xen-4.16-testing real [real]
flight 184126 xen-4.16-testing real-retest [real]
http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/184108/
http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/184126/
Failures :-/ but no regressions.
Tests which are failing intermittently (not blocking):
On 13/12/2023 13:06, Michal Orzel wrote:
Hi,
On 13/12/2023 11:32, Jens Wiklander wrote:
Until now has an unsupported FF-A request been reported back with
NIT: I think 'has' is in the wrong place
Indeed. I have updated the commit message and committed.
Cheers,
--
Julien Grall
On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 1:52 PM Roger Pau Monne wrote:
>
> It's incorrect to assume that the script directory will always match the
> directory the script is executed from. Instead cache the directory at the
> start of script execution in order to be able to get back to it if needed.
>
> Fixes:
From: Maria Celeste Cesario
The xen sources contain violations of MISRA C:2012 Rule 14.4 whose
headline states:
"The controlling expression of an if statement and the controlling
expression of an iteration-statement shall have essentially Boolean type".
Add comparisons to avoid using enum
From: Maria Celeste Cesario
The xen sources contain violations of MISRA C:2012 Rule 14.4 whose
headline states:
"The controlling expression of an if statement and the controlling
expression of an iteration-statement shall have essentially Boolean type".
Add comparisons to avoid using enum
From: Maria Celeste Cesario
The xen sources contain violations of MISRA C:2012 Rule 14.4 whose
headline states:
"The controlling expression of an if statement and the controlling
expression of an iteration-statement shall have essentially Boolean type".
Add comparisons to avoid using enum
flight 184125 xen-unstable-smoke real [real]
http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/184125/
Failures :-/ but no regressions.
Tests which did not succeed, but are not blocking:
test-amd64-amd64-libvirt 15 migrate-support-checkfail never pass
test-arm64-arm64-xl-xsm
On Mon, Dec 11, 2023 at 08:10:17AM +0100, Juergen Gross wrote:
> When adding locking to tools/libs/evtchn/minios.c a semaphore was
> used. This can result in deadlocks, as the lock is taken inside the
> event handler, which can interrupt an already locked region.
Or maybe the issue was with
On 12/1/23 05:27, George Dunlap wrote:
On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 10:28 PM Stefano Stabellini
wrote:
Hi all,
This vote is in the context of this thread:
https://marc.info/?l=xen-devel=169213351810075
To add slightly more context.
The issue here is more than a simple "should we use the word
On 2023-12-12 10:53, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 12.12.2023 10:12, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
On 2023-12-12 02:42, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Mon, 11 Dec 2023, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
The "return 0" after the swich statement in 'xen/arch/x86/mm.c'
is unreachable because all switch clauses end with
flight 184109 xen-4.17-testing real [real]
flight 184124 xen-4.17-testing real-retest [real]
http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/184109/
http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/184124/
Failures :-/ but no regressions.
Tests which are failing intermittently (not blocking):
Pipeline #1105301739 has passed!
Project: xen ( https://gitlab.com/xen-project/xen )
Branch: staging ( https://gitlab.com/xen-project/xen/-/commits/staging )
Commit: a236b74b (
https://gitlab.com/xen-project/xen/-/commit/a236b74b961faa045640275605e319bba45483c1
)
Commit Message: xen/arm:
On Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 01:28:16PM +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
> There is an ongoing disagreement among maintainers for how Xen should
> handle deviations to specifications such as ACPI or EFI.
>
> Write up an explicit policy, and include two worked-out examples from
> recent discussions.
Looks
Hi Jens,
> On 13 Dec 2023, at 11:32, Jens Wiklander wrote:
>
> Until now has an unsupported FF-A request been reported back with
> ARM_SMCCC_ERR_UNKNOWN_FUNCTION in register x0. A FF-A caller would
> rather expect FFA_ERROR in x0 and FFA_RET_NOT_SUPPORTED in x2 so update
> ffa_handle_call() to
On 2023-12-12 16:49, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi,
On 11/12/2023 12:32, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi,
On 11/12/2023 10:30, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
The branches of the switch after a call to 'do_unexpected_trap'
cannot return, but there is one path that may return, hence
only some clauses are marked with
It's incorrect to assume that the script directory will always match the
directory the script is executed from. Instead cache the directory at the
start of script execution in order to be able to get back to it if needed.
Fixes: 629ab8ddb775 ('livepatch-build-tools: do not use readlink -m
Hi,
On 13/12/2023 11:32, Jens Wiklander wrote:
>
>
> Until now has an unsupported FF-A request been reported back with
NIT: I think 'has' is in the wrong place
> ARM_SMCCC_ERR_UNKNOWN_FUNCTION in register x0. A FF-A caller would
> rather expect FFA_ERROR in x0 and FFA_RET_NOT_SUPPORTED in x2
flight 184122 xen-unstable-smoke real [real]
http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/184122/
Failures :-/ but no regressions.
Tests which did not succeed, but are not blocking:
test-amd64-amd64-libvirt 15 migrate-support-checkfail never pass
test-arm64-arm64-xl-xsm
On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 03:31:21AM +, Chen, Jiqian wrote:
> On 2023/12/12 17:18, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 12, 2023 at 06:34:27AM +, Chen, Jiqian wrote:
> >>
> >> On 2023/12/12 01:57, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Dec 11, 2023 at 12:15:19AM +0800, Jiqian Chen wrote:
>
Hello everyone,
I have another question regarding Rule 5.6 ("A `typedef' name shall be
a unique identifier"), this time for X86:
the violations left [1] involve guest_intpte_t, guest_l1e_t and
guest_l2e_t, which seem to be deliberately defined differently depending
on the number of guest paging
On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 11:26 AM Jan Beulich wrote:
>
> It's all the same for the 3 arch-es which have it, and RISC-V would
> introduce a 4th instance. Put it in xen/smp.h instead, while still
> permitting asm/smp.h to define a custom variant if need be.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich
Acked-by:
When an FF-A enabled guest is destroyed it may leave behind memory
shared with SPs. This memory must be reclaimed before it's reused or an
SP may make changes to memory used by a new unrelated guest. So when the
domain is teared down add FF-A requests to reclaim all remaining shared
memory.
SPs
It's all the same for the 3 arch-es which have it, and RISC-V would
introduce a 4th instance. Put it in xen/smp.h instead, while still
permitting asm/smp.h to define a custom variant if need be.
Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich
--- a/xen/arch/arm/include/asm/smp.h
+++ b/xen/arch/arm/include/asm/smp.h
flight 184118 ovmf real [real]
http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/184118/
Perfect :-)
All tests in this flight passed as required
version targeted for testing:
ovmf b8a3eec88cc74bbfe7fb389d026cc7d1d8a989c8
baseline version:
ovmf
Pipeline #1105206956 has passed!
Project: xen ( https://gitlab.com/xen-project/xen )
Branch: staging ( https://gitlab.com/xen-project/xen/-/commits/staging )
Commit: 666e3c29 (
https://gitlab.com/xen-project/xen/-/commit/666e3c294d50e4a7f87a4d22757b7ffe5863b4df
)
Commit Message: xen/iommu:
Pipeline #1105252952 has passed!
Project: xen ( https://gitlab.com/xen-project/xen )
Branch: stable-4.15 ( https://gitlab.com/xen-project/xen/-/commits/stable-4.15 )
Commit: 6400013f (
https://gitlab.com/xen-project/xen/-/commit/6400013f07e5c7fec9f68821755aed94683b663c
)
Commit Message:
On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 07:03:10PM -0800, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Nov 2023, Roger Pau Monne wrote:
> > Introduce a new gitlab tests for livepatching, using livepatch-build-tools,
> > which better reflects how downstreams build live patches rather than the
> > in-tree tests.
> >
> >
Hi,
On 09/11/2023 18:27, Stewart Hildebrand wrote:
A device tree node for a PCIe root controller may have an iommu-map property [1]
with a phandle reference to the SMMU node, but not necessarily an iommus
property. In this case, we want to treat it the same as we currently handle
devices with
On 2023-12-12 11:13, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 11.12.2023 11:30, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
The break statement is redundant, hence it can be removed.
Except ...
--- a/xen/arch/x86/platform_hypercall.c
+++ b/xen/arch/x86/platform_hypercall.c
@@ -723,7 +723,6 @@ ret_t do_platform_op(
ret =
Until now has an unsupported FF-A request been reported back with
ARM_SMCCC_ERR_UNKNOWN_FUNCTION in register x0. A FF-A caller would
rather expect FFA_ERROR in x0 and FFA_RET_NOT_SUPPORTED in x2 so update
ffa_handle_call() to return true and with the cpu_user_regs updated.
Fixes: 38846de2176b
Until now has FFA_PARTITION_INFO_GET always returned zero in w3, but
FF-A v1.1 requires FFA_PARTITION_INFO_GET to return the size of each
partition information descriptor returned if
FFA_PARTITION_INFO_GET_COUNT_FLAG isn't set.
The SPMC queried with FFA_PARTITION_INFO_GET must also return the
Hi,
On 06/12/2023 02:42, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Tue, 5 Dec 2023, Luca Fancellu wrote:
Hi all,
I’m writing this mail to collect thoughts about the need to improve the SAF-*
comments.
I think we reached a point where we need to use deviations for some violation
that we want
to keep in
flight 184107 xen-4.15-testing real [real]
http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/184107/
Failures :-/ but no regressions.
Tests which did not succeed, but are not blocking:
test-armhf-armhf-libvirt 16 saverestore-support-checkfail like 183751
On 13.12.2023 10:55, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 13.12.23 10:48, Julien Grall wrote:
>> I note this was a preference and weight against code duplication. It is not
>> clear to me whether Jan agrees with this extra work now.
>>
>> Anyway, I am not against this approach and if this is what Jan much
On 13.12.2023 10:48, Julien Grall wrote:
> On 13/12/2023 09:17, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> On 13.12.23 09:43, Julien Grall wrote:
>>> On 13/12/2023 06:23, Juergen Gross wrote:
On 12.12.23 20:10, Julien Grall wrote:
> On 12/12/2023 09:47, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> Add another function level
On 13.12.23 10:48, Julien Grall wrote:
On 13/12/2023 09:17, Juergen Gross wrote:
On 13.12.23 09:43, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi Juergen,
On 13/12/2023 06:23, Juergen Gross wrote:
On 12.12.23 20:10, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi Juergen,
On 12/12/2023 09:47, Juergen Gross wrote:
Add another function
On 13/12/2023 09:17, Juergen Gross wrote:
On 13.12.23 09:43, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi Juergen,
On 13/12/2023 06:23, Juergen Gross wrote:
On 12.12.23 20:10, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi Juergen,
On 12/12/2023 09:47, Juergen Gross wrote:
Add another function level in spinlock.c hiding the
On 12.12.2023 23:52, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Dec 2023, Federico Serafini wrote:
>> Add missing parameter name. No functional change.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Federico Serafini
>
> Reviewed-by: Stefano Stabellini
Acked-by: Jan Beulich
On 12.12.2023 23:50, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Dec 2023, Federico Serafini wrote:
>> Add missing parameter names. No functional change.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Federico Serafini
>
> Reviewed-by: Stefano Stabellini
Acked-by: Jan Beulich
On 13.12.23 09:43, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi Juergen,
On 13/12/2023 06:23, Juergen Gross wrote:
On 12.12.23 20:10, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi Juergen,
On 12/12/2023 09:47, Juergen Gross wrote:
Add another function level in spinlock.c hiding the spinlock_t layout
from the low level locking code.
Jan Beulich, le mer. 13 déc. 2023 10:02:43 +0100, a ecrit:
> On 07.12.2023 08:30, Juergen Gross wrote:
> > I've been the main contributor to Mini-OS since several years now.
> > Add me as a maintainer.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Juergen Gross
>
> No matter what ./MAINTAINERS says about the file
On 13.12.23 09:36, Julien Grall wrote:
On 13/12/2023 06:17, Juergen Gross wrote:
On 12.12.23 19:49, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi Juergen,
On 12/12/2023 09:47, Juergen Gross wrote:
-#define spin_lock_init_prof(s, l) __spin_lock_init_prof(s, l, spinlock_t)
-#define rspin_lock_init_prof(s, l)
On 13.12.23 09:36, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 13.12.2023 07:05, Juergen Gross wrote:
On 12.12.23 19:42, Julien Grall wrote:
On 12/12/2023 09:47, Juergen Gross wrote:
--- a/xen/include/xen/spinlock.h
+++ b/xen/include/xen/spinlock.h
@@ -76,13 +76,19 @@ union lock_debug { };
*/
struct
On 07.12.2023 08:30, Juergen Gross wrote:
> I've been the main contributor to Mini-OS since several years now.
> Add me as a maintainer.
>
> Signed-off-by: Juergen Gross
No matter what ./MAINTAINERS says about the file itself, I think this change
primarily wants approving by you, Samuel, as the
Hi Stefano,
On 13/12/2023 00:18, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Mon, 11 Dec 2023, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote:
On 11/27/2023 9:28 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Mon, 27 Nov 2023, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote:
On 11/27/2023 10:22 AM, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote:
On 11/27/2023 7:45 AM, Mario Marietto wrote:
flight 184105 xen-4.18-testing real [real]
flight 184120 xen-4.18-testing real-retest [real]
http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/184105/
http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/184120/
Failures :-/ but no regressions.
Tests which are failing intermittently (not blocking):
Hi Juergen,
On 13/12/2023 06:23, Juergen Gross wrote:
On 12.12.23 20:10, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi Juergen,
On 12/12/2023 09:47, Juergen Gross wrote:
Add another function level in spinlock.c hiding the spinlock_t layout
from the low level locking code.
This is done in preparation of
On 13/12/2023 06:17, Juergen Gross wrote:
On 12.12.23 19:49, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi Juergen,
On 12/12/2023 09:47, Juergen Gross wrote:
-#define spin_lock_init_prof(s, l) __spin_lock_init_prof(s, l,
spinlock_t)
-#define rspin_lock_init_prof(s, l) __spin_lock_init_prof(s, l,
rspinlock_t)
On 13.12.2023 07:05, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 12.12.23 19:42, Julien Grall wrote:
>> On 12/12/2023 09:47, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>> --- a/xen/include/xen/spinlock.h
>>> +++ b/xen/include/xen/spinlock.h
>>> @@ -76,13 +76,19 @@ union lock_debug { };
>>> */
>>> struct spinlock;
>>> +/* Temporary
Hi Juergen,
On 13/12/2023 06:05, Juergen Gross wrote:
On 12.12.23 19:42, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi,
On 12/12/2023 09:47, Juergen Gross wrote:
Struct lock_profile contains a pointer to the spinlock it is associated
with. Prepare support of differing spinlock_t and rspinlock_t types by
adding a
On 11.12.2023 10:14, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
> --- a/xen/arch/arm/include/asm/numa.h
> +++ b/xen/arch/arm/include/asm/numa.h
> @@ -2,8 +2,9 @@
> #define __ARCH_ARM_NUMA_H
>
> #include
With this, ...
> +#include
>
> -typedef u8 nodeid_t;
> +typedef uint8_t nodeid_t;
>
> #ifndef
78 matches
Mail list logo
