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 diff to
(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 line
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 and
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
Whoops, my
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 check
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
Add bitmap for CPU EJ0 callback and write to it on a cpu _EJ0 callback. Remove
Sleep() call.
Signed-off-by: Vasilis Liaskovitis vasilis.liaskovi...@profitbricks.com
---
src/acpi-dsdt.dsl |8 +++-
1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/acpi-dsdt.dsl
Add machine model pc-1.1
Signed-off-by: Vasilis Liaskovitis vasilis.liaskovi...@profitbricks.com
---
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
@@
Add CPU acpi interface documentation. Move all ACPI documentation (CPU and
PCI) to one file.
Signed-off-by: Vasilis Liaskovitis vasilis.liaskovi...@profitbricks.com
---
docs/specs/acpi_hotplug.txt | 49 +++
docs/specs/acpi_pci_hotplug.txt | 37
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 vasilis.liaskovi...@profitbricks.com
---
hw/acpi_piix4.c | 20
hw/pc_piix.c|8
2 files
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 05:07:13PM +0100,
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 conditional statement
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 23.01.2012 17:10,
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
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:
This does not apply if only
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;
}
No need parentheses
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-by:
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 02:02:20PM +0100, j...@alien8.de wrote:
From: Julian Stecklina j...@alien8.de
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
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 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 other
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:
+ } else if
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 and
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 images.
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
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 emulation so
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 seeing
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 must be
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 jan.kis...@siemens.com
---
Note that I removed the binary patch to delete pc-bios/openbios-sparc.
It seemms to have caused troubles getting this
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. i think it is
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 kvm'?
It works,
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
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 = Standard PC,
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
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 QEMUMachine
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
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 regression.
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, no.
This
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, yes, keeping it
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 completely?
Adding
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 interrupt is
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 to
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) input must
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 which means
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 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 isn't
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
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
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
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 an
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 disable
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 previous
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 can't
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 the source
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 place else
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 cannot be
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.
Anthony Liguori anth...@codemonkey.ws 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
Forward to kvm maillist. Thank you.
-- Forwarded message --
From: Jidong Xiao jidong.x...@gmail.com
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
On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 13:24:56 +0200
Avi Kivity a...@redhat.com 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
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 and
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 and
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 initialization The edge
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
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
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 registers
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 patch fixes the
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 6:24 AM, Ademar de Souza Reis Jr.
ar...@redhat.com 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
(Please keep me CC'd on any followup; I'm not subscribed. Thanks.)
Signed-off-by: Laszlo Ersek ler...@redhat.com
---
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
@@
Laszlo Ersek ler...@redhat.com writes:
(Please keep me CC'd on any followup; I'm not subscribed. Thanks.)
Patch is fine, but it needs to go to qemu-de...@nongnu.org.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe kvm in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More
On 01/24/12 21:05, Markus Armbruster wrote:
Laszlo Ersekler...@redhat.com writes:
(Please keep me CC'd on any followup; I'm not subscribed. Thanks.)
Patch is fine, but it needs to go toqemu-de...@nongnu.org.
Ooops... Thanks!
Laszlo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
Yes, I saw the problem with 3.0.13. Thanks!
Gabe
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 11:40 PM, Sasha Levin levinsasha...@gmail.com 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
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.
Please
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
(2012/01/24 23:35), Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 13:24:56 +0200
Avi Kivitya...@redhat.com 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
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 other
On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 13:24:56 +0200
Avi Kivity a...@redhat.com 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
76 matches
Mail list logo
