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
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,
etc.
OK what
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,
etc.
OK what
* Gleb Natapov g...@redhat.com [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 Dongeddie.d...@intel.com
Move Double-Fault
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
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 combination
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 one attached
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
serially.
But
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 works for me.
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 with
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
