On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 12:54 +1000, Rusty Russell wrote:
>
> This is a cool idea, but there are two issues with this patch. The
> first is that it's 500 lines of code: that's around +10% on lguest's
> total code size! The second is that it conflicts with the medium-term
> plan to allow
On Wed, 2007-04-04 at 14:23 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> This is taken from the work I did on lguest64.
>
> When killing a guest, we read the guest stack to do a nice back trace of
> the guest and send it via printk to the host.
>
> So instead of just getting an error message from the lguest
This is taken from the work I did on lguest64.
When killing a guest, we read the guest stack to do a nice back trace of
the guest and send it via printk to the host.
So instead of just getting an error message from the lguest launcher of:
lguest: bad read address 537012178 len 1
I also get in
This is taken from the work I did on lguest64.
When killing a guest, we read the guest stack to do a nice back trace of
the guest and send it via printk to the host.
So instead of just getting an error message from the lguest launcher of:
lguest: bad read address 537012178 len 1
I also get in
On Wed, 2007-04-04 at 14:23 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
This is taken from the work I did on lguest64.
When killing a guest, we read the guest stack to do a nice back trace of
the guest and send it via printk to the host.
So instead of just getting an error message from the lguest
On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 12:54 +1000, Rusty Russell wrote:
This is a cool idea, but there are two issues with this patch. The
first is that it's 500 lines of code: that's around +10% on lguest's
total code size! The second is that it conflicts with the medium-term
plan to allow any
6 matches
Mail list logo
