A few general questions (referring to version 2 of this patch):
Solaris doesn't require Xen hypervisor structures to be locked into
memory on hypercalls? I see the same thing happens in libxc too, so
that's right, but I don't understand how the hypervisor swaps pages in
if they aren't
On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 09:18:14PM -0400, Mark Johnson wrote:
On 6/14/07, Mark Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Seems to be redefining v0_hypercall_t to be the same struct in both
halves of the #ifdef. But then later on, all references to
v0_hypercall_t
in the code are #ifdef'd out for
On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 05:57:30AM -0400, Daniel Veillard wrote:
#include xen/xen.h
+#ifdef __linux__
#include xen/linux/privcmd.h
+#else
+#include xen/sys/privcmd.h
+#endif
In general I would prefer Solaris sections to not be defined as !linux
but as a positive test on your
On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 12:27:01PM +0100, John Levon wrote:
On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 05:57:30AM -0400, Daniel Veillard wrote:
#include xen/xen.h
+#ifdef __linux__
#include xen/linux/privcmd.h
+#else
+#include xen/sys/privcmd.h
+#endif
In general I would prefer Solaris
On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 07:46:14AM -0400, Daniel Veillard wrote:
+void
+loadCapabilities(FILE *cpuinfo, FILE *capabilities, char *hvm_type,
+int *host_pae, char *line, int LINE_SIZE)
+{
+struct {
+uint32_t r_eax, r_ebx, r_ecx, r_edx;
+} _r, *rp =
On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 05:57:30AM -0400, Daniel Veillard wrote:
On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 09:18:14PM -0400, Mark Johnson wrote:
diff --git a/src/xml.c b/src/xml.c
--- a/src/xml.c
+++ b/src/xml.c
@@ -812,12 +812,18 @@ virDomainParseXMLOSDescPV(virConnectPtr
return (-1);
}
On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 06:01:56PM -0400, Mark Johnson wrote:
This is a little bigger of a patch. It has a couple of things in it.
First, in xen_internal.c and xs_internal.c have general dom0 support
for Solaris.
Again, using #ifdef/ifndef __linux__ to separate the logic.
I'm getting a
On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 12:05:33AM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
I'm curious as to what the changes for bootloader / kernel are for ?
Surely you always have either a bootloader, or a kenrel present in
the SEXPR ? So I'm not sure why its neccessary to disable the check
No, this is not true,
On 6/14/07, Daniel P. Berrange [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 06:01:56PM -0400, Mark Johnson wrote:
This is a little bigger of a patch. It has a couple of things in it.
First, in xen_internal.c and xs_internal.c have general dom0 support
for Solaris.
Again, using
On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 12:21:09AM +0100, John Levon wrote:
On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 12:05:33AM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
I'm curious as to what the changes for bootloader / kernel are for ?
Surely you always have either a bootloader, or a kenrel present in
the SEXPR ? So I'm not
On 6/14/07, Mark Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm getting a little confused about the xen_internal.c changes for the
hypercalls.
This is chunk:
Yeah, another funcky diff.. I'll send a different diff for this file
later tonight. I'm managing the changes out of a hg mq gate.
@@ -38,6
On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 01:02:16AM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
I'm curious as to what the changes for bootloader / kernel are for ?
Surely you always have either a bootloader, or a kenrel present in
the SEXPR ? So I'm not sure why its neccessary to disable the check
No, this is
On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 02:26:36AM +0100, John Levon wrote:
On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 01:02:16AM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
I'm curious as to what the changes for bootloader / kernel are for ?
Surely you always have either a bootloader, or a kenrel present in
the SEXPR ? So I'm
On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 03:20:19AM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
Well to give some form of indication as to how the guest is being booted.
Perhaps rather than making up a default path, just an empty bootloader/
element would work. The semantics being launch with the default bootloader
for
14 matches
Mail list logo
