On Thu, 2007-03-22 at 14:30 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Which tree are you patching??
We crossed in the mail: you turfed out the paravirt.h cleanup patch it
applied to.
We have rolled the fixes one patch, and am testing...
Rusty.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe li
Andrew Morton wrote:
> Which tree are you patching??
> -
It looks like its against the previously posted "Cleanup: rationalize
paravirt wrappers" patch.
J
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo inf
On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 18:49:30 +1100
Rusty Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> rdmsr_safe() takes pointers. rdmsr() modifies its arguments. What a
> mess.
>
> Fix rdmsr_safe() with !CONFIG_PARAVIRT.
>
> Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> diff -r a7f78e8eacc8 include/asm-i386/
Rusty Russell wrote:
> It was actually Jeremy's paravirt cleanup patch which changed the
> calling convention of rdmsr_safe() to match rdmsr().
>
Oops, my little mind hobgoblin is getting out of control...
J
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the b
On Thu, 2007-03-22 at 09:20 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> My rdmsr_safe (x86_64, i386 is similar/same) is
Erk. Andrew, please drop that patch, and take this one.
It was actually Jeremy's paravirt cleanup patch which changed the
calling convention of rdmsr_safe() to match rdmsr().
I went "oh it's t
Rusty Russell wrote:
Grrr Andi refused to take my "rdmsr64" patch which moved to a
function-like interface for MSRs, dismissing it as pointless churn.
paravirt_ops cleanups changed a macro to an inline and spotted this
kvm bug.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
diff -r 47c6e
6 matches
Mail list logo
