> I patch against bhyve_SVM, because in the later case I get
This patch is to sync bhyve_svm project branch with HEAD @263780, so you
have to first merge HEAD to bhyve_svm. It will prompt you to resolve
conflict in amdv.c, you should accept the changes that are in bhyve_svm and
then apply the patch. bhyve HEAD exposed vlapic related interfaces along
with some other changes, this patch will enable vlapic interfaces for SVM.
Thanks and regards,
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 2:03 PM, Willem Jan Withagen <w...@digiware.nl>wrote:
> On 15-5-2014 17:56, Anish wrote:
> > Hi Andriy,
> > Thanks for your interest in SVM port of bhyve. I do have patch to sync
> > to http://svnweb.freebsd.org/base?view=revision&revision=263780(3/26).
> > patches looks good to you, we can submit it. I have been testing it on
> > Phenom box which lacks some of newer SVM features.
> I don't quite understand against what this patch is?
> Do I run it over head, to get SVM code into head?
> Or do I patch against bhyve_SVM, because in the later case I get
> complaints that
> fatal error: 'vlapic_priv.h' file not found
> # locate vlapic_priv.h
> So I'm guessing that is against head.
> But last time I looked at head, more than just the interrupt stuff was
email@example.com mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to