> On 08.03.2013, at 21:25, Scott Wood wrote:
>
> > The existing check handles the case where we've migrated to a different
> > core than we last ran on, but it doesn't handle the case where we're
> > still on the same cpu we last ran on, but some other vcpu has run on
> > this cpu in the meantime.
On 08.03.2013, at 21:25, Scott Wood wrote:
> The existing check handles the case where we've migrated to a different
> core than we last ran on, but it doesn't handle the case where we're
> still on the same cpu we last ran on, but some other vcpu has run on
> this cpu in the meantime.
>
> Witho
The existing check handles the case where we've migrated to a different
core than we last ran on, but it doesn't handle the case where we're
still on the same cpu we last ran on, but some other vcpu has run on
this cpu in the meantime.
Without this, guest segfaults (and other misbehavior) have bee
On 19.02.2013, at 05:13, Scott Wood wrote:
> The existing check handles the case where we've migrated to a different
> core than we last ran on, but it doesn't handle the case where we're
> still on the same cpu we last ran on, but some other vcpu has run on
> this cpu in the meantime.
>
> Signe
The existing check handles the case where we've migrated to a different
core than we last ran on, but it doesn't handle the case where we're
still on the same cpu we last ran on, but some other vcpu has run on
this cpu in the meantime.
Signed-off-by: Scott Wood
---
This seems to have been the cau
