On 02/07/2008 07:00 PM, Roland McGrath wrote:
> It sure didn't look to me like paravirt probably worked. But what do I know?
>
I said "if" it worked you probably would have broken it. :)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL
It sure didn't look to me like paravirt probably worked. But what do I know?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://ww
On 02/07/2008 03:30 PM, Roland McGrath wrote:
>> Did you test without CONFIG_PARAVIRT, and CONFIG_PARAVIRT booted both with
>> and
>> without the "noreplace-paravirt" parameter?
>
> I did not test CONFIG_PARAVIRT at all. I just fixed what its introduction
> had done to break generic x86-64.
>
>
> Did you test without CONFIG_PARAVIRT, and CONFIG_PARAVIRT booted both with and
> without the "noreplace-paravirt" parameter?
I did not test CONFIG_PARAVIRT at all. I just fixed what its introduction
had done to break generic x86-64.
Thanks,
Roland
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the li
On 02/05/2008 03:15 AM, Roland McGrath wrote:
>> thanks, applied. I suppose you have a testcase for this that we could try?
>
> This should exit 0 and show "wait status 0xb7f", and does on i386.
> On 2.6.24 it exits 1 and shows "wait status 0xb".
>
> Note, on the current tree before [PATCH] x86_6
> thanks, applied. I suppose you have a testcase for this that we could try?
This should exit 0 and show "wait status 0xb7f", and does on i386.
On 2.6.24 it exits 1 and shows "wait status 0xb".
Note, on the current tree before [PATCH] x86_64: fix iret exception recovery
that I also posted today,
> > thanks, applied. I suppose you have a testcase for this that we could try?
>
> This should exit 0 and show "wait status 0xb7f", and does on i386.
> On 2.6.24 it exits 1 and shows "wait status 0xb".
To clarify, build the case with -m32 but run on x86_64.
Thanks,
Roland
--
To unsubscribe from
* Roland McGrath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This makes the x86-64 behavior for 32-bit processes that set bogus
> %cs/%ss values (the only ones that can fault in iret) match what the
> native i386 behavior has been since:
>
> commit a879cbbb34cbecfa9707fbb6e5a00c503ac1ecb9
> Autho
This makes the x86-64 behavior for 32-bit processes that set
bogus %cs/%ss values (the only ones that can fault in iret)
match what the native i386 behavior has been since:
commit a879cbbb34cbecfa9707fbb6e5a00c503ac1ecb9
Author: Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: F
9 matches
Mail list logo