So please explain me about the commit:
1. is this really the thing you intended to do?
I think so.
2. including directly is OK?
-- I made a sample patch to avoid this, see below.
I don't see a problem with it, it is also included from other places.
It might be possible to
On 21.04.2010, at 11:26, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 04/21/2010 09:07 AM, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
>> Hi, Alex, Avi, Marcelo
>>
>> I would like to ask you about the commit:
>> c8240bd6f0b4b1b21ffd36dd44114d05c7afe0c0 "Use Little Endian for Dirty
>> Bitmap"
>> I pasted a snipet below!
>>
>> I am no
On 04/21/2010 09:07 AM, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
Hi, Alex, Avi, Marcelo
I would like to ask you about the commit:
c8240bd6f0b4b1b21ffd36dd44114d05c7afe0c0 "Use Little Endian for Dirty Bitmap"
I pasted a snipet below!
I am now confused by the Alex's comment to my recent patch:
"change mark_
(2010/04/21 15:07), Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
=== not tested ===
[PATCH sample] KVM: avoid to include an asm-generic bitops header file directly
Including asm-generic bitops headers is kind of violation: there is no
guarantee that
no one will change those functions we are using.
Signed-off-by:
Hi, Alex, Avi, Marcelo
I would like to ask you about the commit:
c8240bd6f0b4b1b21ffd36dd44114d05c7afe0c0 "Use Little Endian for Dirty Bitmap"
I pasted a snipet below!
I am now confused by the Alex's comment to my recent patch:
"change mark_page_dirty() to handle endian issues explicitly"
in
