On 9/21/2021 9:13 AM, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote:
On 9/20/2021 10:37 PM, Elliott Mitchell wrote:
On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 10:23:39PM -0400, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote:
On 9/20/21 7:39 PM, Diederik de Haas wrote:
On dinsdag 21 september 2021 01:15:15 CEST Elliott Mitchell wrote:
Merely having the path
On 9/20/2021 10:37 PM, Elliott Mitchell wrote:
On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 10:23:39PM -0400, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote:
On 9/20/21 7:39 PM, Diederik de Haas wrote:
On dinsdag 21 september 2021 01:15:15 CEST Elliott Mitchell wrote:
Merely having the path is a sufficiently strong indicator for me to
On 9/20/21 10:12 PM, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote:
On 9/20/21 6:29 PM, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote:
On 9/20/21 1:43 PM, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote:
On 9/20/21 12:27 AM, Elliott Mitchell wrote:
On Sun, Sep 19, 2021 at 01:05:56AM -0400, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote:
I suspect the following patch is the culprit
On 9/20/21 10:37 PM, Elliott Mitchell wrote:
On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 10:23:39PM -0400, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote:
On 9/20/21 7:39 PM, Diederik de Haas wrote:
On dinsdag 21 september 2021 01:15:15 CEST Elliott Mitchell wrote:
Merely having the path is a sufficiently strong indicator for me to
On 9/20/21 7:39 PM, Diederik de Haas wrote:
On dinsdag 21 september 2021 01:15:15 CEST Elliott Mitchell wrote:
Merely having the path is a sufficiently strong indicator for me to
simply wave it past. I though would suggest Debian should instead
cherry-pick commit
On 9/20/21 6:29 PM, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote:
On 9/20/21 1:43 PM, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote:
On 9/20/21 12:27 AM, Elliott Mitchell wrote:
On Sun, Sep 19, 2021 at 01:05:56AM -0400, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote:
I suspect the following patch is the culprit for problems
shutting down on the amd64
On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 10:23:39PM -0400, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote:
>
> On 9/20/21 7:39 PM, Diederik de Haas wrote:
> > On dinsdag 21 september 2021 01:15:15 CEST Elliott Mitchell wrote:
> >> Merely having the path is a sufficiently strong indicator for me to
> >> simply wave it past. I though
On 9/20/21 1:43 PM, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote:
On 9/20/21 12:27 AM, Elliott Mitchell wrote:
On Sun, Sep 19, 2021 at 01:05:56AM -0400, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote:
I suspect the following patch is the culprit for problems
shutting down on the amd64 architecture:
On dinsdag 21 september 2021 01:15:15 CEST Elliott Mitchell wrote:
> Merely having the path is a sufficiently strong indicator for me to
> simply wave it past. I though would suggest Debian should instead
> cherry-pick commit 0f089bbf43ecce6f27576cb548ba4341d0ec46a8.
>
> This is available as a
On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 06:29:49PM -0400, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote:
> On 9/20/21 1:43 PM, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote:
> >
> > On 9/20/21 12:27 AM, Elliott Mitchell wrote:
> >> On Sun, Sep 19, 2021 at 01:05:56AM -0400, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote:
> >>
> >>> I suspect the following patch is the culprit for
On 9/20/21 12:27 AM, Elliott Mitchell wrote:
On Sun, Sep 19, 2021 at 01:05:56AM -0400, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote:
I suspect the following patch is the culprit for problems
shutting down on the amd64 architecture:
0030-xen-acpi-Rework-acpi_os_map_memory-and-acpi_os_unmap.patch
This patch does
On 9/20/21 12:27 AM, Elliott Mitchell wrote:
On Sun, Sep 19, 2021 at 01:05:56AM -0400, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote:
xen hypervisor version: 4.14.2+25-gb6a8c4f72d-2, amd64
linux kernel version: 5.10.46-4 (the current amd64 kernel
for bullseye)
Boot system: EFI, not using secure boot, booting xen
On 9/19/2021 9:30 PM, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote:
On 9/19/2021 4:53 PM, Elliott Mitchell wrote:
On Sun, Sep 19, 2021 at 03:54:01PM -0400, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote:
On 9/19/2021 1:29 PM, Elliott Mitchell wrote:
Have you tried memory ballooning with PVH or HVM domains?
That combination has been
On 9/19/2021 4:53 PM, Elliott Mitchell wrote:
On Sun, Sep 19, 2021 at 03:54:01PM -0400, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote:
On 9/19/2021 1:29 PM, Elliott Mitchell wrote:
Have you tried memory ballooning with PVH or HVM domains?
That combination has been reliably crashing Xen for me for a while.
On Sun, Sep 19, 2021 at 01:05:56AM -0400, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote:
> xen hypervisor version: 4.14.2+25-gb6a8c4f72d-2, amd64
>
> linux kernel version: 5.10.46-4 (the current amd64 kernel
> for bullseye)
>
> Boot system: EFI, not using secure boot, booting xen
> hypervisor and dom0 bullseye with
On 9/19/2021 1:29 PM, Elliott Mitchell wrote:
On Sun, Sep 19, 2021 at 01:05:56AM -0400, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote:
I noticed this bug on bullseye ever since I have been
running bullseye as a dom0, but my testing indicates
there is no problem with src:linux but the problem
appeared in src:xen with
On 9/19/2021 10:56 AM, Elliott Mitchell wrote:
On Sun, Sep 19, 2021 at 01:05:56AM -0400, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote:
On Sat, 11 Sep 2021 13:29:12 +0200 Salvatore Bonaccorso
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 06:47:12PM -0700, Elliott Mitchell wrote:
> > An experiment lead to a potential
On 9/19/2021 1:05 AM, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote:
Hello Elliott and Salvatore,
I noticed this bug on bullseye ever since I have been
running bullseye as a dom0, but my testing indicates
there is no problem with src:linux but the problem
appeared in src:xen with the 4.14 version of xen on
bullseye.
On Sun, Sep 19, 2021 at 01:05:56AM -0400, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Sep 2021 13:29:12 +0200 Salvatore Bonaccorso
> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 06:47:12PM -0700, Elliott Mitchell wrote:
> > > An experiment lead to a potential alternative explanation for #991967.
> > >
On Sat, 11 Sep 2021 13:29:12 +0200 Salvatore Bonaccorso
wrote:
> Hi Elliott,
>
> On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 06:47:12PM -0700, Elliott Mitchell wrote:
> > An experiment lead to a potential alternative explanation for #991967.
> > The issue may be ACPI (non-UEFI) powerdown/reset was broken at
> >
On Sat, Sep 11, 2021 at 01:29:12PM +0200, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 06:47:12PM -0700, Elliott Mitchell wrote:
> > An experiment lead to a potential alternative explanation for #991967.
> > The issue may be ACPI (non-UEFI) powerdown/reset was broken at
> > 4.19.194-3.
Hi Elliott,
On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 06:47:12PM -0700, Elliott Mitchell wrote:
> An experiment lead to a potential alternative explanation for #991967.
> The issue may be ACPI (non-UEFI) powerdown/reset was broken at
> 4.19.194-3. Presence of Xen on the system may be unrelated.
>
> Failing that,
An experiment lead to a potential alternative explanation for #991967.
The issue may be ACPI (non-UEFI) powerdown/reset was broken at
4.19.194-3. Presence of Xen on the system may be unrelated.
Failing that, it could be Xen and non-UEFI systems are effected. (Xen
was tried on a UEFI system and
23 matches
Mail list logo
