On 2014-05-21 6:55, Anish wrote:
Hi Willem,

 > I patch against bhyve_SVM, because in the later case I get
complaints that
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.

I'd be interested in the vlapic to if that helps the speed.
But you can help me a lot if you give me the SVN commands to do what you described above.

I can fetch a clean bhyve_svm brach, but that is as far as my svn goes.

I'll see if I can get my patches in as well.


Thanks and regards,

On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 2:03 PM, Willem Jan Withagen <w...@digiware.nl
<mailto: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 it
     > to
    http://svnweb.freebsd.org/base?view=revision&revision=263780(3/26). If
     > 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


freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to 

Reply via email to