From: Carlo Marcelo Arenas Belon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
complement ff5396cfeacf74ad9611a35e882ff100b10126aci, removing
the warning printed by ./configure --help which recommended
at configure time against using gcc4 as it wasn't supported by
dyngen.
Signed-off-by: Carlo Marcelo Arenas Belon [EMAIL
From: Chris Lalancette [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Older linux guests (in this case, 2.6.9) can attempt to
access the performance counter MSRs without a fixup section, and injecting
a GPF kills the guest. Work around by allowing the guest to write those MSRs.
Tested by me on RHEL-4 i386 and x86_64
I am still using Guillaume's real mode patches in my local tree. This
fixes a compilation error I came across after the lastest pull. I am
sending just in case you re-apply the patch.
Signed-off-by: Mohammed Gamal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c |2 +-
1 files changed, 1
Bugs item #2001452, was opened at 2008-06-24 07:27
Message generated for change (Comment added) made by gerdwachs
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detailatid=893831aid=2001452group_id=180599
Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment
On Saturday 28 June 2008 13:35:27 Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 11:20:47AM +0800, Yang, Sheng wrote:
On Saturday 28 June 2008 02:05:19 Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
exit_intr_info is read-only in nature, so once read it can be
cached similarly to idtv_vectoring_inf.
On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 11:59:27AM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
Yeah. To be on the safe side you can have KVM_CHECK_EXTENSION return
false for KVM_CAP_CLOCKSOURCE.
Oh! That's even better. Would that be sufficient? I mean, do all guest
versions check this before trying to use the paravirt clock?
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 04:39:23PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
Yeah. To be on the safe side you can have KVM_CHECK_EXTENSION
return false for KVM_CAP_CLOCKSOURCE.
Oh! That's even better. Would that be sufficient? I mean, do all
guest versions check this before trying to use the paravirt clock?
On Sat, 2008-06-28 at 06:43 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
Anthony Liguori wrote:
Hypercalls can modify arbitrary regions of memory. Make sure to indicate
this
in the clobber list. This fixes a hang when using KVM_GUEST kernel built
with
GCC 4.3.0.
This was originally spotted and
I've been trying out RHL6.2 [sic] on KVM 70. This has an ancient
2.2.14 kernel and generally dates from 1999/2000. However it does run
nicely in 16 MB of RAM which makes it useful for me because I want to
see what happens when we run 100s of KVM instances :-)
A few observations:
(1) IDE DMA
Hollis Blanchard wrote:
On Sat, 2008-06-28 at 06:43 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
Anthony Liguori wrote:
Hypercalls can modify arbitrary regions of memory. Make sure to indicate this
in the clobber list. This fixes a hang when using KVM_GUEST kernel built with
GCC 4.3.0.
This was
Sukanto Ghosh wrote:
Sukanto Ghosh wrote:
What do these refer to ?
i) kvm_rmap_desc
It's a reverse mapping listing all shadow ptes pointing to a given guest
page.
Then what is the rmap field of the 'struct kvm_memory_slot' ? Is it the
list of kvm_rmap_desc (one list entry
This patch makes the needlessly global kvm_smp_prepare_boot_cpu() static.
Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
a03ee2a21c4e40483712d453a4f803980186c59f
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/kvmclock.c b/arch/x86/kernel/kvmclock.c
index 87edf1c..d02def0 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/kvmclock.c
From d85feaae019bc0abc98a2524369e04d521a78aa8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Dor Laor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 18:22:44 -0400
Subject: [PATCH] Fix block mode hduring halt emulation
There is no need to check for pending pit/apic timer, nor
pending virq, since all of the check
Thanks Avi for the rhel-5.2.patch. I was able to successfully apply it
to kvm-70. In addition I found myself having to make one more small
modification for RHEL 5.2
I found myself also having to modify the kernel/external-module-compat.h
at line 670 (as per emails from Andrea Arcangeli on June
Ben-Ami Yassour wrote:
On Fri, 2008-06-20 at 14:23 +0800, Han, Weidong wrote:
Ben-Ami Yassour1 wrote:
Han, Weidong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 19/06/2008 17:18:00:
Ben-Ami Yassour wrote:
On Thu, 2008-06-19 at 16:59 +0800, Han, Weidong wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Ben-Ami Yassour
Sukanto Ghosh wrote:
I am calling the entire tree-like structure (including the page
directories) as a page table. In the above statement are you referring
to
the same ? Or is it the last-level table that holds translated physical
addresses (+ dirty bit, etc ) ?
No, any guest page that
16 matches
Mail list logo
