On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 05:54:07PM +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > It's actually less readable. I know 11 is between 10 and 13, but is
> > NP_VECTOR between TS_VECTOR and GP_VECTOR?
> >
> > This is better as a switch, or even:
> >
> > u8 exception_class[] = {
> >[PF_VECTOR] EXPT_PF,
> >
> >
On 11/19/2009 05:54 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
It's actually less readable. I know 11 is between 10 and 13, but is
NP_VECTOR between TS_VECTOR and GP_VECTOR?
This is better as a switch, or even:
u8 exception_class[] = {
[PF_VECTOR] EXPT_PF,
etc.
OK what about this then:
From: Eddie D
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 05:54:07PM +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > It's actually less readable. I know 11 is between 10 and 13, but is
> > NP_VECTOR between TS_VECTOR and GP_VECTOR?
> >
> > This is better as a switch, or even:
> >
> > u8 exception_class[] = {
> >[PF_VECTOR] EXPT_PF,
> >
> >
* Gleb Natapov [2009-11-19 09:55]:
> > It's actually less readable. I know 11 is between 10 and 13, but is
> > NP_VECTOR between TS_VECTOR and GP_VECTOR?
> >
> > This is better as a switch, or even:
> >
> > u8 exception_class[] = {
> >[PF_VECTOR] EXPT_PF,
> >
> > etc.
> OK what about this
> It's actually less readable. I know 11 is between 10 and 13, but is
> NP_VECTOR between TS_VECTOR and GP_VECTOR?
>
> This is better as a switch, or even:
>
> u8 exception_class[] = {
>[PF_VECTOR] EXPT_PF,
>
> etc.
OK what about this then:
From: Eddie Dong
Move Double-Fault generation lo
On 11/12/2009 03:05 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 01:41:31PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 05:29:47PM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
I suppose a complete fix would be to follow the "Conditions for
Generating a Double Fau
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 02:07:09PM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 02:21:24PM +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 05:29:47PM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > > I suppose a complete fix would be to follow the "Conditions for
> > > Generating a Double Fault
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 02:21:24PM +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 05:29:47PM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > I suppose a complete fix would be to follow the "Conditions for
> > Generating a Double Fault" with support for handling exceptions
> > serially.
> >
> > But this wo
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 01:41:31PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 05:29:47PM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> >> I suppose a complete fix would be to follow the "Conditions for
> >> Generating a Double Fault" with support for handling exceptions
> >> seria
Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 05:29:47PM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
>> I suppose a complete fix would be to follow the "Conditions for
>> Generating a Double Fault" with support for handling exceptions
>> serially.
>>
>> But this works for me.
>>
> I prefer proper solution. Like
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 05:29:47PM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> I suppose a complete fix would be to follow the "Conditions for
> Generating a Double Fault" with support for handling exceptions
> serially.
>
> But this works for me.
>
I prefer proper solution. Like one attached (this is combin
I suppose a complete fix would be to follow the "Conditions for
Generating a Double Fault" with support for handling exceptions
serially.
But this works for me.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo
12 matches
Mail list logo
