On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 11:56:00PM -0500, Peter Memishian wrote: > > > i ended up filing the following bugs on this issue: > . > > 6668816 find_child_by_addr() causes ddi_hold_devi_by_instance() to return > the wrong dip > > 6668833 xvm 3.1 changes rtls subsystem ids, breaks existing HVM domUs > > So I can understand how 6668816 was exposed by UV, but what does 6668833 > have to do with UV? Or did you happen to upgrade to Xen 3.1 at the same > time you upgraded to bits that included UV? >
6668816 was exposed by UV and 6668833. 6668833 has nothing to do with UV. also, i did upgrade to both UV and xvm 3.1 at the same time. ah the joys of life on the bleeding edge. ;) ed
