A large part of the content of the bug.h is repeated among all
architectures, so it was decided to create a new config
CONFIG_GENERIC_BUG_FRAME.
The version of from ARM was taken as the base version,
as it looks the most portable.
The patch introduces the following stuff:
* common bug.h header
On 03.02.2023 18:05, Oleksii Kurochko wrote:
> --- a/xen/common/Kconfig
> +++ b/xen/common/Kconfig
> @@ -92,6 +92,12 @@ config STATIC_MEMORY
>
> If unsure, say N.
>
> +config GENERIC_DO_BUG_FRAME
> + bool
> + help
> + Generic do_bug_frame() function is needed to handle the
On 13/02/2023 12:24, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 03.02.2023 18:05, Oleksii Kurochko wrote:
--- a/xen/common/Kconfig
+++ b/xen/common/Kconfig
@@ -92,6 +92,12 @@ config STATIC_MEMORY
If unsure, say N.
+config GENERIC_DO_BUG_FRAME
+ bool
+ help
+ Generic do_bug_frame()
On 13.02.2023 14:19, Julien Grall wrote:
> On 13/02/2023 12:24, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 03.02.2023 18:05, Oleksii Kurochko wrote:
>>> --- /dev/null
>>> +++ b/xen/common/bug.c
>>> @@ -0,0 +1,88 @@
>>> +#include
>>> +#include
>>> +#include
>>> +#include
>>
>> Please order headers alphabetically
On 13/02/2023 1:19 pm, Julien Grall wrote:
>
>
> On 13/02/2023 12:24, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 03.02.2023 18:05, Oleksii Kurochko wrote:
>>> --- a/xen/common/Kconfig
>>> +++ b/xen/common/Kconfig
>>> @@ -92,6 +92,12 @@ config STATIC_MEMORY
>>> If unsure, say N.
>>> +config GENERIC_DO_BUG
Hi Andrew,
On 13/02/2023 13:33, Andrew Cooper wrote:
On 13/02/2023 1:19 pm, Julien Grall wrote:
On 13/02/2023 12:24, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 03.02.2023 18:05, Oleksii Kurochko wrote:
--- a/xen/common/Kconfig
+++ b/xen/common/Kconfig
@@ -92,6 +92,12 @@ config STATIC_MEMORY
If unsure
On 13/02/2023 13:30, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 13.02.2023 14:19, Julien Grall wrote:
On 13/02/2023 12:24, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 03.02.2023 18:05, Oleksii Kurochko wrote:
--- /dev/null
+++ b/xen/common/bug.c
@@ -0,0 +1,88 @@
+#include
+#include
+#include
+#include
Please order headers alph
On 13.02.2023 14:56, Julien Grall wrote:
> On 13/02/2023 13:30, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 13.02.2023 14:19, Julien Grall wrote:
>>> On 13/02/2023 12:24, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 03.02.2023 18:05, Oleksii Kurochko wrote:
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/xen/include/xen/bug.h
> @@ -0,0 +1,127 @@
Hi,
On 13/02/2023 15:02, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 13.02.2023 14:56, Julien Grall wrote:
On 13/02/2023 13:30, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 13.02.2023 14:19, Julien Grall wrote:
On 13/02/2023 12:24, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 03.02.2023 18:05, Oleksii Kurochko wrote:
--- /dev/null
+++ b/xen/include/xen/bug.
On 13.02.2023 16:07, Julien Grall wrote:
> On 13/02/2023 15:02, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 13.02.2023 14:56, Julien Grall wrote:
>>> On 13/02/2023 13:30, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 13.02.2023 14:19, Julien Grall wrote:
> On 13/02/2023 12:24, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 03.02.2023 18:05, Oleksii
Hi Jan!
Thanks a lot for starting the review of the patch series!
On Mon, 2023-02-13 at 13:24 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 03.02.2023 18:05, Oleksii Kurochko wrote:
> > --- a/xen/common/Kconfig
> > +++ b/xen/common/Kconfig
> > @@ -92,6 +92,12 @@ config STATIC_MEMORY
> >
> > If unsur
On 14.02.2023 17:22, Oleksii wrote:
> On Mon, 2023-02-13 at 13:24 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 03.02.2023 18:05, Oleksii Kurochko wrote:
>>> --- a/xen/common/Kconfig
>>> +++ b/xen/common/Kconfig
>>> @@ -92,6 +92,12 @@ config STATIC_MEMORY
>>>
>>> If unsure, say N.
>>>
>>> +config G
On Tue, 2023-02-14 at 17:55 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 14.02.2023 17:22, Oleksii wrote:
> > On Mon, 2023-02-13 at 13:24 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > On 03.02.2023 18:05, Oleksii Kurochko wrote:
> > > > --- a/xen/common/Kconfig
> > > > +++ b/xen/common/Kconfig
> > > > @@ -92,6 +92,12 @@ confi
Hello Jan and community,
I experimented and switched RISC-V to x86 implementation. All that I
changed in x86 implementation for RISC-V was _ASM_BUGFRAME_TEXT. Other
things are the same as for x86.
For RISC-V it is fine to skip '%c' modifier so _ASM_BUGFRAME_TEXT will
look like:
#define _ASM_BUGF
On 15.02.2023 18:59, Oleksii wrote:
> Hello Jan and community,
>
> I experimented and switched RISC-V to x86 implementation. All that I
> changed in x86 implementation for RISC-V was _ASM_BUGFRAME_TEXT. Other
> things are the same as for x86.
>
> For RISC-V it is fine to skip '%c' modifier so _AS
On Thu, 2023-02-16 at 08:31 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 15.02.2023 18:59, Oleksii wrote:
> > Hello Jan and community,
> >
> > I experimented and switched RISC-V to x86 implementation. All that
> > I
> > changed in x86 implementation for RISC-V was _ASM_BUGFRAME_TEXT.
> > Other
> > things are th
On 16/02/2023 7:31 am, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 15.02.2023 18:59, Oleksii wrote:
>> Hello Jan and community,
>>
>> I experimented and switched RISC-V to x86 implementation. All that I
>> changed in x86 implementation for RISC-V was _ASM_BUGFRAME_TEXT. Other
>> things are the same as for x86.
>>
>> F
On Thu, 2023-02-16 at 12:44 +0200, Oleksii wrote:
> On Thu, 2023-02-16 at 08:31 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > On 15.02.2023 18:59, Oleksii wrote:
> > > Hello Jan and community,
> > >
> > > I experimented and switched RISC-V to x86 implementation. All
> > > that
> > > I
> > > changed in x86 impleme
On 16/02/2023 12:09 pm, Oleksii wrote:
> On Thu, 2023-02-16 at 12:44 +0200, Oleksii wrote:
>> On Thu, 2023-02-16 at 08:31 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 15.02.2023 18:59, Oleksii wrote:
Hello Jan and community,
I experimented and switched RISC-V to x86 implementation. All
that
On Thu, 2023-02-16 at 10:48 +, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 16/02/2023 7:31 am, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > On 15.02.2023 18:59, Oleksii wrote:
> > > Hello Jan and community,
> > >
> > > I experimented and switched RISC-V to x86 implementation. All
> > > that I
> > > changed in x86 implementation for
On 16.02.2023 11:48, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 16/02/2023 7:31 am, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 15.02.2023 18:59, Oleksii wrote:
>>> Hello Jan and community,
>>>
>>> I experimented and switched RISC-V to x86 implementation. All that I
>>> changed in x86 implementation for RISC-V was _ASM_BUGFRAME_TEXT.
On 16.02.2023 11:44, Oleksii wrote:
> On Thu, 2023-02-16 at 08:31 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 15.02.2023 18:59, Oleksii wrote:
>>> The only thing I am worried about is:
>>>
>>> #define _ASM_BUGFRAME_INFO(type, line, ptr, msg) \
>>> [bf_type] "i" (type), ...
>>> because as I understand it can
On Thu, 2023-02-16 at 12:19 +, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 16/02/2023 12:09 pm, Oleksii wrote:
> > On Thu, 2023-02-16 at 12:44 +0200, Oleksii wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2023-02-16 at 08:31 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > On 15.02.2023 18:59, Oleksii wrote:
> > > > > Hello Jan and community,
> > > > >
On 16.02.2023 21:44, Oleksii wrote:
> On Thu, 2023-02-16 at 12:19 +, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> On 16/02/2023 12:09 pm, Oleksii wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2023-02-16 at 12:44 +0200, Oleksii wrote:
On Thu, 2023-02-16 at 08:31 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 15.02.2023 18:59, Oleksii wrote:
>> H
On Fri, 2023-02-17 at 08:12 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 16.02.2023 21:44, Oleksii wrote:
> > On Thu, 2023-02-16 at 12:19 +, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> > > On 16/02/2023 12:09 pm, Oleksii wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 2023-02-16 at 12:44 +0200, Oleksii wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, 2023-02-16 at 08:31 +0100,
25 matches
Mail list logo