Glauber de Oliveira Costa wrote:
Since the last version of it received no comments on the interfaces, here
it goes a version, that I feel ready for inclusion.
The comments regarding style, specially the elimination of the #defines in
the desc_struct definition were merged. I also implemented
Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Glauber de Oliveira Costa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ingo, in the absense of further complaints, could you please push to
the x86 tree?
yeah, i've added them.
the patches cause a spontaneous reboot on x86
before i pulled the patches i narrowed the problem down to one of the
last ~6 patches in your 25-patch series. I couldnt continue bisecting it
when i saw that process_64.c warning.
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message
* Glauber de Oliveira Costa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> * Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
> Ingo, in the absense of further complaints, could you please push to
> the x86 tree?
yeah, i've added them.
>>> the patches cause a spontaneous reboot on x86
Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ingo, in the absense of further complaints, could you please push
to the x86 tree?
yeah, i've added them.
the patches cause a spontaneous reboot on x86 64-bit, around the time
when bootup hits user-space. It's due to one of the 25
* Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Ingo, in the absense of further complaints, could you please push
> > > to the x86 tree?
> >
> > yeah, i've added them.
>
> the patches cause a spontaneous reboot on x86 64-bit, around the time
> when bootup hits user-space. It's due to one of
* Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Since the last version of it received no comments on the interfaces,
> > here it goes a version, that I feel ready for inclusion.
> >
> > The comments regarding style, specially the elimination of the
> > #defines in the desc_struct definition were
* Glauber de Oliveira Costa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Since the last version of it received no comments on the interfaces,
> here it goes a version, that I feel ready for inclusion.
>
> The comments regarding style, specially the elimination of the
> #defines in the desc_struct definition
Since the last version of it received no comments on the interfaces, here
it goes a version, that I feel ready for inclusion.
The comments regarding style, specially the elimination of the #defines in
the desc_struct definition were merged. I also implemented the vmi
functions,
missing last time.
Since the last version of it received no comments on the interfaces, here
it goes a version, that I feel ready for inclusion.
The comments regarding style, specially the elimination of the #defines in
the desc_struct definition were merged. I also implemented the vmi
functions,
missing last time.
* Glauber de Oliveira Costa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since the last version of it received no comments on the interfaces,
here it goes a version, that I feel ready for inclusion.
The comments regarding style, specially the elimination of the
#defines in the desc_struct definition were
Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ingo, in the absense of further complaints, could you please push
to the x86 tree?
yeah, i've added them.
the patches cause a spontaneous reboot on x86 64-bit, around the time
when bootup hits user-space. It's due to one of the 25
* Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ingo, in the absense of further complaints, could you please push
to the x86 tree?
yeah, i've added them.
the patches cause a spontaneous reboot on x86 64-bit, around the time
when bootup hits user-space. It's due to one of the 25 patches
* Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since the last version of it received no comments on the interfaces,
here it goes a version, that I feel ready for inclusion.
The comments regarding style, specially the elimination of the
#defines in the desc_struct definition were merged. I
* Glauber de Oliveira Costa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ingo, in the absense of further complaints, could you please push to
the x86 tree?
yeah, i've added them.
the patches cause a spontaneous reboot on x86 64-bit, around the time
before i pulled the patches i narrowed the problem down to one of the
last ~6 patches in your 25-patch series. I couldnt continue bisecting it
when i saw that process_64.c warning.
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to
Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Glauber de Oliveira Costa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ingo, in the absense of further complaints, could you please push to
the x86 tree?
yeah, i've added them.
the patches cause a spontaneous reboot on x86 64-bit,
Glauber de Oliveira Costa wrote:
Since the last version of it received no comments on the interfaces, here
it goes a version, that I feel ready for inclusion.
The comments regarding style, specially the elimination of the #defines in
the desc_struct definition were merged. I also implemented
Hi,
this is a series of patches that unify the struct desc_struct and friends
across x86_64 and i386. As usual, it provides paravirt capabilities as a
side-effect for x86_64.
I consider the main goal, namely, of unifying the desc_struct, an ongoing
effort, being this the beginning. A lot of old
Hi,
this is a series of patches that unify the struct desc_struct and friends
across x86_64 and i386. As usual, it provides paravirt capabilities as a
side-effect for x86_64.
I consider the main goal, namely, of unifying the desc_struct, an ongoing
effort, being this the beginning. A lot of old
20 matches
Mail list logo
