(2012/01/24 23:35), Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 13:24:56 +0200
Avi Kivity wrote:
On 01/23/2012 12:42 PM, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
The last one is an RFC patch:
I think it is better to refactor the rmap things, if needed, before
other architectures than x86 starts large pages s
The kvm_vcpu_kick function performs roughly the same funcitonality on
most all architectures, so we shouldn't have separate copies.
PowerPC keeps a pointer to interchanging waitqueues on the vcpu_arch
structure and to accomodate this special need a
__KVM_HAVE_ARCH_VCPU_GET_WQ define and accompanyi
Hello,
> Does Kemari support SMP guests or do the guests have to have only 1 VCPU ?
> Is there a version [& code] that is available that one can try out on an
> RHEL6.2 + KVM + X86_64 env.?
Kemari is workable on RHEL6.2(x86_64) environment with multi VCPU options.
# I am using CentOS6.2.
Pleas
Yes, I saw the problem with 3.0.13. Thanks!
Gabe
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 11:40 PM, Sasha Levin wrote:
> The GET_SUPPORTED_CPUID bug has been fixed and shouldn't be happening
> from v3.2 onwards.
>
> Do you still see the issue in older versions?
>
> On Mon, 2012-01-23 at 21:20 -0800, Gabe Black w
On 01/24/12 21:05, Markus Armbruster wrote:
Laszlo Ersek writes:
(Please keep me CC'd on any followup; I'm not subscribed. Thanks.)
Patch is fine, but it needs to go to.
Ooops... Thanks!
Laszlo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to ma
Laszlo Ersek writes:
> (Please keep me CC'd on any followup; I'm not subscribed. Thanks.)
Patch is fine, but it needs to go to .
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/
(Please keep me CC'd on any followup; I'm not subscribed. Thanks.)
Signed-off-by: Laszlo Ersek
---
qemu-io.c |4 ++--
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/qemu-io.c b/qemu-io.c
index ffa62fb..938b20c 100644
--- a/qemu-io.c
+++ b/qemu-io.c
@@ -1118,7 +1118,7 @@ stati
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 6:24 AM, Ademar de Souza Reis Jr.
wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 04:54:04PM -0800, Nick H wrote:
>> Hello All,
>>
>> Non-development question, apologies if I am posting to the wrong list,
>> but I cannot seem to find linux kvm forum 2010 videos at the following
>> link:
>
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 03:24:50PM +0100, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Am 24.01.2012 15:16, schrieb Gleb Natapov:
> > On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 03:15:13PM +0100, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> >> Am 24.01.2012 15:03, schrieb Joerg Roedel:
> >>> On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 05:10:46PM +0100, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> This patc
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 04:28:43PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 01/17/2012 01:24 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 02:17:22PM +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > > Return to behaviour perf MSR had before introducing vPMU in case vPMU
> > > is disabled. Some guests access those regi
On 01/24/2012 08:13 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 01/24/2012 04:10 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2012-01-24 15:05, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 01/19/2012 08:54 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
Nope, see kvm_irqchip_create, patch 13. You can also check by browsing
the qtree (different device model names).
That was my bi
On 01/24/2012 08:05 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 01/19/2012 08:54 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
Nope, see kvm_irqchip_create, patch 13. You can also check by browsing
the qtree (different device model names).
That was my biggest objection to the previous iterations. Later
versions changed to use an attri
On 2012-01-24 14:54, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 02:49:24PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> On 2012-01-24 14:46, Gleb Natapov wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 02:44:15PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2012-01-24 14:06, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> The spec says that during initializa
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 11:28:41AM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2012-01-24 11:10, Vasilis Liaskovitis wrote:
> > Add stub functions for CPU eject callback. Define cpu_acpi_eject property
> > and
> > enable eject callback only for pc-1.1 machine model.
>
> Just to get the idea: What is the plan a
On 01/24/2012 03:30 PM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>> * qtest/libos: Python or C?
>
> Both.
More importantly: When?:-)
Are there still any problems that must be fixed before it can be merged?
There was no discussion on my alternative proposal on IRQ interception.
Which might mean it's all fine an
On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 13:24:56 +0200
Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 01/23/2012 12:42 PM, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
> > The last one is an RFC patch:
> >
> > I think it is better to refactor the rmap things, if needed, before
> > other architectures than x86 starts large pages support.
> >
>
> Not commenting
Forward to kvm maillist. Thank you.
-- Forwarded message --
From: Jidong Xiao
Date: Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 11:09 PM
Subject: How to measure time for program running in guest OS?
To: virtualizat...@lists.linux-foundation.org
Hi,
I am running a guest OS (Fedora 16) with kvm (The ho
Anthony Liguori writes:
> On 01/23/2012 11:38 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> Please send in any agenda items you are interested in covering.
>
> I don't have anything pressing. I vote to cancel the call.
Call's cancelled.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the
On 01/17/2012 01:24 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 02:17:22PM +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > Return to behaviour perf MSR had before introducing vPMU in case vPMU
> > is disabled. Some guests access those registers unconditionally and do
> > not expect it to fail.
> >
> > Sig
Am 24.01.2012 15:08, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
> On 01/24/2012 08:03 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> On 01/24/2012 02:57 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
Please send in any agenda items you are interested in covering.
>>>
>>> I don't have anything pressing. I vote to cancel the call.
>>
>> Nothing that c
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 04:54:04PM -0800, Nick H wrote:
> Hello All,
>
> Non-development question, apologies if I am posting to the wrong list,
> but I cannot seem to find linux kvm forum 2010 videos at the following
> link:
>
> http://www.linux-kvm.org/page/KVM_Forum_2010
>
> Is there some plac
Am 24.01.2012 15:16, schrieb Gleb Natapov:
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 03:15:13PM +0100, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>> Am 24.01.2012 15:03, schrieb Joerg Roedel:
>>> On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 05:10:46PM +0100, Kevin Wolf wrote:
This patch fixes the problem for VMX. For SVM, the logic used to
determine
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 03:15:13PM +0100, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Am 24.01.2012 15:03, schrieb Joerg Roedel:
> > On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 05:10:46PM +0100, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> >> This patch fixes the problem for VMX. For SVM, the logic used to
> >> determine the source of the task switch is buggy, so we
On 01/24/2012 04:10 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2012-01-24 15:05, Avi Kivity wrote:
> > On 01/19/2012 08:54 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >> Nope, see kvm_irqchip_create, patch 13. You can also check by browsing
> >> the qtree (different device model names).
> >
> > That was my biggest objection to the p
Am 24.01.2012 15:03, schrieb Joerg Roedel:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 05:10:46PM +0100, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>> This patch fixes the problem for VMX. For SVM, the logic used to
>> determine the source of the task switch is buggy, so we can't pass
>> useful information to the emulator there and just dis
On 2012-01-24 15:05, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 01/19/2012 08:54 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> Nope, see kvm_irqchip_create, patch 13. You can also check by browsing
>> the qtree (different device model names).
>
> That was my biggest objection to the previous iterations. Later
> versions changed to use a
On 01/24/2012 08:03 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 01/24/2012 02:57 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
Please send in any agenda items you are interested in covering.
I don't have anything pressing. I vote to cancel the call.
Nothing that cannot be discussed by email, but anyway here are a couple of
t
On 01/19/2012 08:54 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Nope, see kvm_irqchip_create, patch 13. You can also check by browsing
> the qtree (different device model names).
That was my biggest objection to the previous iterations. Later
versions changed to use an attribute (selecting the backend). What
happen
On 01/24/2012 02:57 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
Please send in any agenda items you are interested in covering.
I don't have anything pressing. I vote to cancel the call.
Nothing that cannot be discussed by email, but anyway here are a couple
of topics:
* qtest/libos: Python or C?
* QOM m
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 05:10:46PM +0100, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> This patch fixes the problem for VMX. For SVM, the logic used to
> determine the source of the task switch is buggy, so we can't pass
> useful information to the emulator there and just disable the check in
> all cases.
Actually, SVM is
On 01/23/2012 11:38 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
Please send in any agenda items you are interested in covering.
I don't have anything pressing. I vote to cancel the call.
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
Cheers,
Markus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 02:49:24PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2012-01-24 14:46, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 02:44:15PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >> On 2012-01-24 14:06, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >>> The spec says that during initialization "The edge sense circuit is
> >>> reset
On 2012-01-24 14:46, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 02:44:15PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> On 2012-01-24 14:06, Gleb Natapov wrote:
>>> The spec says that during initialization "The edge sense circuit is
>>> reset which means that following initialization an interrupt request
>>> (IR
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 02:44:15PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2012-01-24 14:06, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > The spec says that during initialization "The edge sense circuit is
> > reset which means that following initialization an interrupt request
> > (IR) input must make a low-to-high transition t
On 2012-01-24 14:06, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> The spec says that during initialization "The edge sense circuit is
> reset which means that following initialization an interrupt request
> (IR) input must make a low-to-high transition to generate an interrupt",
> but currently if edge triggered interrup
On 2012-01-24 14:26, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 01/24/2012 03:12 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> On 2012-01-24 14:09, Avi Kivity wrote:
>>> On 01/24/2012 01:38 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>
> IIRC introduced for ia64. But isn't the correct action adding it to
> qemu.git instead of removing it completel
On 01/24/2012 03:12 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2012-01-24 14:09, Avi Kivity wrote:
> > On 01/24/2012 01:38 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >>>
> >>> IIRC introduced for ia64. But isn't the correct action adding it to
> >>> qemu.git instead of removing it completely?
> >>
> >> Adding something to qemu.git,
On 2012-01-24 14:09, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 01/24/2012 01:38 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>>
>>> IIRC introduced for ia64. But isn't the correct action adding it to
>>> qemu.git instead of removing it completely?
>>
>> Adding something to qemu.git, yes, keeping it here without knowing the
>> final code,
On 01/24/2012 01:38 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >
> > IIRC introduced for ia64. But isn't the correct action adding it to
> > qemu.git instead of removing it completely?
>
> Adding something to qemu.git, yes, keeping it here without knowing the
> final code, no.
This is called introducing a regress
The spec says that during initialization "The edge sense circuit is
reset which means that following initialization an interrupt request
(IR) input must make a low-to-high transition to generate an interrupt",
but currently if edge triggered interrupt is in IRR it is delivered
after i8259 initializ
On 2012-01-24 13:52, Andreas Färber wrote:
> Am 24.01.2012 11:28, schrieb Jan Kiszka:
>> On 2012-01-24 11:10, Vasilis Liaskovitis wrote:
>>> diff --git a/hw/pc_piix.c b/hw/pc_piix.c
>>> index ac251c6..6d61567 100644
>>> --- a/hw/pc_piix.c
>>> +++ b/hw/pc_piix.c
>>> @@ -380,6 +380,14 @@ static QEMUM
Hello,
[ I am very new to KVM...so i am not sure if this is the right forum to ask this
question. If not kindly point me to the right forum. ]
I would like to get some info. on the current status of Kemari for KVM.
Does Kemari support SMP guests or do the guests have to have only 1 VCPU ?
Is t
Am 24.01.2012 11:28, schrieb Jan Kiszka:
> On 2012-01-24 11:10, Vasilis Liaskovitis wrote:
>> diff --git a/hw/pc_piix.c b/hw/pc_piix.c
>> index ac251c6..6d61567 100644
>> --- a/hw/pc_piix.c
>> +++ b/hw/pc_piix.c
>> @@ -380,6 +380,14 @@ static QEMUMachine pc_machine_v1_1 = {
>> .desc = "Standar
On 01/17/2012 01:59 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> >
> > All this copy-paste could be avoided by sharing this stuff with the
> > arch/x86/kvm/ code.
>
> Yes, same for KVM_MAX_VCPUS.
>
>
This is an internal define. perf kvm should work with different kernel
versions, so it needs to query the value
On 01/17/2012 04:30 AM, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> On 01/16/2012 06:04 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
>
> > On 01/16/2012 11:32 AM, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> >> Add 'perf kvm-events' support to analyze kvm vmexit/mmio/ioport smartly
> >>
> >> Usage:
> >>perf kvm-events record
> >
> > Why not 'perf record -e
On 01/17/2012 04:28 AM, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> On 01/16/2012 05:38 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
>
> > On 01/16/2012 11:32 AM, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> >> - trace vcpu_id for these events
> >
> > We can infer the vcpu id from the kvm_entry tracepoints, no?
> >
>
>
> Thanks for your review, Avi!
>
> Hmm.
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 08:06:00PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> None of those files have any meaning for today's qemu-kvm.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jan Kiszka
> ---
>
> Note that I removed the binary patch to delete pc-bios/openbios-sparc.
> It seemms to have caused troubles getting this on the list.
>
Am 24.01.2012 12:37, schrieb Gleb Natapov:
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 12:31:48PM +0100, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>> Am 24.01.2012 11:57, schrieb Gleb Natapov:
>>> On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 05:10:48PM +0100, Kevin Wolf wrote:
Task switches can switch between Protected Mode and VM86. The current
mode
On 2012-01-24 12:34, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 01/24/2012 10:57 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>> That says that it's unneeded on (some?) IBM Power systems. We need it
>>> on Freescale chips. I submitted an upstream-QEMU patch to do this flush
>>> (referenced in that thread, still not applied) because I was
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 12:31:48PM +0100, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Am 24.01.2012 11:57, schrieb Gleb Natapov:
> > On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 05:10:48PM +0100, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> >> Task switches can switch between Protected Mode and VM86. The current
> >> mode must be updated during the task switch emulat
Hi,
I just got the following in dmesg with linux-3.2.1:
[23379.612251] usb 2-1.2: new high-speed USB device number 6 using ehci_hcd
[0.00] Marking TSC unstable due to KVM discovered backwards TSC
[23421.511167] Switching to clocksource hpet
The mainboard is an Asus P8H67-V, BIOS 0806 10/
On 01/24/2012 10:57 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> > That says that it's unneeded on (some?) IBM Power systems. We need it
> > on Freescale chips. I submitted an upstream-QEMU patch to do this flush
> > (referenced in that thread, still not applied) because I was seeing
> > cache problems when loading i
Am 24.01.2012 11:57, schrieb Gleb Natapov:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 05:10:48PM +0100, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>> Task switches can switch between Protected Mode and VM86. The current
>> mode must be updated during the task switch emulation so that the new
>> segment selectors are interpreted correctly a
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 12:23:07PM +0100, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Am 24.01.2012 11:52, schrieb Gleb Natapov:
> > On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 11:38:24AM +0100, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> >> Am 24.01.2012 11:17, schrieb Gleb Natapov:
> >>> On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 11:09:09AM +0100, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> >> +
On 01/23/2012 12:42 PM, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
> The last one is an RFC patch:
>
> I think it is better to refactor the rmap things, if needed, before
> other architectures than x86 starts large pages support.
>
Not commenting about the meat of the patches (not sufficiently recovered
yet), but ot
Am 24.01.2012 11:52, schrieb Gleb Natapov:
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 11:38:24AM +0100, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>> Am 24.01.2012 11:17, schrieb Gleb Natapov:
>>> On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 11:09:09AM +0100, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>> +} else if (reason != TASK_SWITCH_IRET) {
>> +dpl
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 02:02:20PM +0100, j...@alien8.de wrote:
> From: Julian Stecklina
>
> If the guest programs an IPI with level=0 (de-assert) and trig_mode=0 (edge),
> it is erroneously treated as INIT de-assert and ignored, but to quote the
> spec: "For this delivery mode [INIT de-assert],
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 05:10:48PM +0100, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Task switches can switch between Protected Mode and VM86. The current
> mode must be updated during the task switch emulation so that the new
> segment selectors are interpreted correctly and privilege checks
> succeed.
>
> Signed-off-b
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 11:38:24AM +0100, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Am 24.01.2012 11:17, schrieb Gleb Natapov:
> > On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 11:09:09AM +0100, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> +} else if (reason != TASK_SWITCH_IRET) {
> +dpl = next_tss_desc.dpl;
> }
> >>>
Am 24.01.2012 11:17, schrieb Gleb Natapov:
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 11:09:09AM +0100, Kevin Wolf wrote:
+ } else if (reason != TASK_SWITCH_IRET) {
+ dpl = next_tss_desc.dpl;
}
>>> No need parentheses around one statement.
>>
>> Documentation/CodingStyle says:
>>
>> "Thi
On 2012-01-24 11:10, Vasilis Liaskovitis wrote:
> Add stub functions for CPU eject callback. Define cpu_acpi_eject property and
> enable eject callback only for pc-1.1 machine model.
Just to get the idea: What is the plan and advantage of introducing a
stub first? How much more is required to have
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 11:14:23AM +0100, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Am 23.01.2012 17:42, schrieb Gleb Natapov:
> > On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 05:32:59PM +0100, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> >> Am 23.01.2012 17:22, schrieb Gleb Natapov:
> >>> On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 05:20:22PM +0100, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Am 23.01.
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 11:09:09AM +0100, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> >> + } else if (reason != TASK_SWITCH_IRET) {
> >> + dpl = next_tss_desc.dpl;
> >>}
> > No need parentheses around one statement.
>
> Documentation/CodingStyle says:
>
> "This does not apply if only one branch of a condit
Am 23.01.2012 17:42, schrieb Gleb Natapov:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 05:32:59PM +0100, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>> Am 23.01.2012 17:22, schrieb Gleb Natapov:
>>> On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 05:20:22PM +0100, Kevin Wolf wrote:
Am 23.01.2012 17:10, schrieb Gleb Natapov:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 05:07:
Add stub functions for CPU eject callback. Define cpu_acpi_eject property and
enable eject callback only for pc-1.1 machine model.
Signed-off-by: Vasilis Liaskovitis
---
hw/acpi_piix4.c | 20
hw/pc_piix.c|8
2 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-
Add CPU acpi interface documentation. Move all ACPI documentation (CPU and
PCI) to one file.
Signed-off-by: Vasilis Liaskovitis
---
docs/specs/acpi_hotplug.txt | 49 +++
docs/specs/acpi_pci_hotplug.txt | 37 -
2 files change
Add machine model pc-1.1
Signed-off-by: Vasilis Liaskovitis
---
hw/pc_piix.c |8
1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/hw/pc_piix.c b/hw/pc_piix.c
index 744b0dc..ac251c6 100644
--- a/hw/pc_piix.c
+++ b/hw/pc_piix.c
@@ -375,6 +375,13 @@ static void pc_xen_hv
Add bitmap for CPU EJ0 callback and write to it on a cpu _EJ0 callback. Remove
Sleep() call.
Signed-off-by: Vasilis Liaskovitis
---
src/acpi-dsdt.dsl |8 +++-
1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/acpi-dsdt.dsl b/src/acpi-dsdt.dsl
index 7082b65..5138c2a 10064
This patch series adds support for CPU ejection callbacks in Seabios and qemu.
This will be needed for proper ACPI vcpu destruction/unplug in conjunction
with the vcpu lifecycle patches.
v1->v2: Add pc-1.1 model with cpu acpi ejection property. Add documentation.
v1 of the series also defined the
Am 24.01.2012 10:52, schrieb Gleb Natapov:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 05:10:46PM +0100, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>> Currently, all task switches check privileges against the DPL of the
>> TSS. This is only correct for jmp/call to a TSS. If a task gate is used,
>> the DPL of this take gate is used for the c
Am 24.01.2012 10:51, schrieb Takuya Yoshikawa:
> (2012/01/24 1:07), Kevin Wolf wrote:
>> Commit 1d946e07 removed idt, but left a reference to idt in i386-only
>> code.
>>
>
> This is already fixed by
>
> commit b319491d278d4e85de7ea967982f7d416f4a44e4
> desc: fix build for i386
Whoop
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 05:10:46PM +0100, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Currently, all task switches check privileges against the DPL of the
> TSS. This is only correct for jmp/call to a TSS. If a task gate is used,
> the DPL of this take gate is used for the check instead. Exceptions,
> external interrupts
(2012/01/24 1:07), Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Commit 1d946e07 removed idt, but left a reference to idt in i386-only
> code.
>
This is already fixed by
commit b319491d278d4e85de7ea967982f7d416f4a44e4
desc: fix build for i386
Takuya
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the lin
On 2012-01-24 01:26, Scott Wood wrote:
> On 01/19/2012 12:04 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> On 2012-01-19 18:54, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 01:39:24PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
This is at best a PPC topi but according to [1] even there unneeded. In
any case, remove this d
74 matches
Mail list logo
