>>> On 28.10.15 at 19:34, wrote:
> On 28/10/15 17:55, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 08:38:34AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 09.10.15 at 14:46, wrote:
On Fri, 2015-10-09 at 13:29 +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 09/10/15 09:25, Jan Beulich wrote:
>
On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 06:34:37PM +, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 28/10/15 17:55, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 08:38:34AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > On 09.10.15 at 14:46, wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 2015-10-09 at 13:29 +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 09/10/15 09
On 28/10/15 17:55, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 08:38:34AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 09.10.15 at 14:46, wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2015-10-09 at 13:29 +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote:
On 09/10/15 09:25, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 09.10.15 at 04:56, wrote:
>> All
On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 08:38:34AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 09.10.15 at 14:46, wrote:
> > On Fri, 2015-10-09 at 13:29 +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> >> On 09/10/15 09:25, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> > > > > On 09.10.15 at 04:56, wrote:
> >> > > All existing commands ignore the parameter so t
On Fri, 2015-10-09 at 08:38 -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > On 09.10.15 at 14:46, wrote:
> > On Fri, 2015-10-09 at 13:29 +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> > > On 09/10/15 09:25, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > > > > On 09.10.15 at 04:56, wrote:
> > > > > All existing commands ignore the parameter so thi
>>> On 09.10.15 at 14:46, wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-10-09 at 13:29 +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> On 09/10/15 09:25, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> > > > > On 09.10.15 at 04:56, wrote:
>> > > All existing commands ignore the parameter so this does
>> > > not break the ABI.
>> > Does it not? What about the deb
On 09/10/15 13:46, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-10-09 at 13:29 +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> On 09/10/15 09:25, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 09.10.15 at 04:56, wrote:
All existing commands ignore the parameter so this does
not break the ABI.
>>> Does it not? What about the debug m
On Fri, 2015-10-09 at 13:29 +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 09/10/15 09:25, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > > On 09.10.15 at 04:56, wrote:
> > > All existing commands ignore the parameter so this does
> > > not break the ABI.
> > Does it not? What about the debug mode clobbering of hypercall
> > argum
On 09/10/15 09:25, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 09.10.15 at 04:56, wrote:
>> All existing commands ignore the parameter so this does
>> not break the ABI.
> Does it not? What about the debug mode clobbering of hypercall
> argument registers?
That is an implementation detail of the hypervisor. It i
>>> On 09.10.15 at 04:56, wrote:
> All existing commands ignore the parameter so this does
> not break the ABI.
Does it not? What about the debug mode clobbering of hypercall
argument registers? I think such length indicators need to be part
of the newly added sub-structures instead.
> This pave
All existing commands ignore the parameter so this does
not break the ABI. This paves the way for expanding the XENVER_
hypercall with variable size structures, such as
"XENVER_build_id: Provide ld-embedded build-ids"
Suggested-by: Andrew Cooper
Signed-off-by: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
---
xen/arch
11 matches
Mail list logo