Hi Jeff,
This patch has been floating around for a while now, Santi originally
sent it in March: http://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg00471.html
You replied saying you thought it was "bonkers", I think I explained why
it wasn't, perhaps you disagree.
I'm resending it now in the hope you can ei
On 4/29/06, Santiago Leon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Michael Ellerman wrote:
> Any chance of getting it into to 2.6.17 ...
2.6.19 perhaps?
cheers
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vge
Michael Ellerman wrote:
Looks like this hit the floor. Any chance of getting it into to 2.6.17
Jeff? AFAICT it should still apply cleanly.
/me knocks politely
Actually, it doesn't apply cleanly anymore. Here's a patch that does.
--
Santiago A. Leon
Power Linux Development
IBM Linux Technolog
On Mon, 2006-03-27 at 12:11 +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-03-02 at 13:40 -0600, Santiago Leon wrote:
> > From: Michael Ellerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > After a kexec the veth driver will fail when trying to register with the
> > Hypervisor because the previous kernel has not un
On Thu, 2006-03-02 at 13:40 -0600, Santiago Leon wrote:
> From: Michael Ellerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> After a kexec the veth driver will fail when trying to register with the
> Hypervisor because the previous kernel has not unregistered.
>
> So if the registration fails, we unregister and then
On Fri, 3 Mar 2006 12:10:47 +1100 Michael Ellerman wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Mar 2006 11:34, Randy.Dunlap wrote:
> > On Fri, 3 Mar 2006 11:22:45 +1100 Michael Ellerman wrote:
> > > Hi Jeff,
> > >
> > > I realise it's late, but it'd be really good if you could send this up
> > > for 2.6.16, we're hosed wi
On Fri, 3 Mar 2006 12:04, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Santiago Leon wrote:
> > From: Michael Ellerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > After a kexec the veth driver will fail when trying to register with the
> > Hypervisor because the previous kernel has not unregistered.
> >
> > So if the registration fails,
On Fri, 3 Mar 2006 11:34, Randy.Dunlap wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Mar 2006 11:22:45 +1100 Michael Ellerman wrote:
> > Hi Jeff,
> >
> > I realise it's late, but it'd be really good if you could send this up
> > for 2.6.16, we're hosed without it.
>
> I'm wondering if this means that for every virtual/hyperv
Santiago Leon wrote:
From: Michael Ellerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
After a kexec the veth driver will fail when trying to register with the
Hypervisor because the previous kernel has not unregistered.
So if the registration fails, we unregister and then try again.
Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman
Randy.Dunlap writes:
> E.g., could the hypervisor know when one of it's virtual OSes
> dies or reboots and release its resources then?
I think the point is that with kexec, the same virtual machine keeps
running, so the hypervisor doesn't see the OS dying or rebooting.
Paul.
-
To unsubscribe fro
On Fri, 3 Mar 2006 11:22:45 +1100 Michael Ellerman wrote:
> Hi Jeff,
>
> I realise it's late, but it'd be really good if you could send this up for
> 2.6.16, we're hosed without it.
I'm wondering if this means that for every virtual/hypervisor
situation, we have to modify any $interested_driver
Hi Jeff,
I realise it's late, but it'd be really good if you could send this up for
2.6.16, we're hosed without it.
cheers
On Fri, 3 Mar 2006 06:40, Santiago Leon wrote:
> From: Michael Ellerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> After a kexec the veth driver will fail when trying to register with the
> H
From: Michael Ellerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
After a kexec the veth driver will fail when trying to register with the
Hypervisor because the previous kernel has not unregistered.
So if the registration fails, we unregister and then try again.
Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Ac
13 matches
Mail list logo
