> On 9 Jun 2015, at 10:38, Wei Liu wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 10:29:56AM +0100, Wei Liu wrote:
> [...]
+ con.next_tid <- initial_next_tid
>>>
>>> I couldn’t spot the part in the C version where the next transaction id is
>>> reset — is this a (minor) difference between the two im
On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 10:29:56AM +0100, Wei Liu wrote:
[...]
> > > + con.next_tid <- initial_next_tid
> >
> > I couldn’t spot the part in the C version where the next transaction id is
> > reset — is this a (minor) difference between the two implementations, or
> > have I misread the code?
>
On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 09:19:19AM +0100, Dave Scott wrote:
>
> > On 8 Jun 2015, at 18:43, Wei Liu wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 08, 2015 at 04:53:46PM +0100, Wei Liu wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 03:35:18PM +0200, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> >>> Jan and Tim,
> >>>
> >>> last week you expresse
> On 8 Jun 2015, at 18:43, Wei Liu wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 08, 2015 at 04:53:46PM +0100, Wei Liu wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 03:35:18PM +0200, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>>> Jan and Tim,
>>>
>>> last week you expressed some concerns about if the toolstack-based
>>> approach to PVHVM guest kex
On Mon, Jun 08, 2015 at 04:53:46PM +0100, Wei Liu wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 03:35:18PM +0200, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> > Jan and Tim,
> >
> > last week you expressed some concerns about if the toolstack-based
> > approach to PVHVM guest kexec is the best. Here you can see the 'reset
> > ev
On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 03:35:18PM +0200, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> Jan and Tim,
>
> last week you expressed some concerns about if the toolstack-based
> approach to PVHVM guest kexec is the best. Here you can see the 'reset
> everything' approach to the same problem. It is the bare minimum of wha
Vitaly Kuznetsov writes ("[PATCH RFC 0/4] 'reset everything' approach to PVHVM
guest kexec"):
> 1) As XS_RESET_WATCHES is not supported by oxenstored we need to try removing
> the watch in case add operation failed, e.g.:
It would surely be better to fix oxenstored. IIRC the approach of
trying t
Hi,
At 15:35 +0200 on 03 Jun (1433345718), Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> last week you expressed some concerns about if the toolstack-based
> approach to PVHVM guest kexec is the best. Here you can see the 'reset
> everything' approach to the same problem. It is the bare minimum of what
> should be do
Jan and Tim,
last week you expressed some concerns about if the toolstack-based
approach to PVHVM guest kexec is the best. Here you can see the 'reset
everything' approach to the same problem. It is the bare minimum of what
should be done to make it possible for the new kernel to boot. Despite
the
