On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 07:41:30PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 11/11/2013 19:26, Marc Zyngier ha scritto:
The pull requests were clean and my life wasn't complicated much... On
the other hand I'm trying to understand if there's something that can be
improved because the conflict
On 12/11/13 09:41, Andrew Jones wrote:
On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 07:41:30PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 11/11/2013 19:26, Marc Zyngier ha scritto:
The pull requests were clean and my life wasn't complicated much... On
the other hand I'm trying to understand if there's something that can be
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=60620
--- Comment #17 from Jason Wang jasow...@redhat.com ---
Created attachment 114331
-- https://bugzilla.kernel.org/attachment.cgi?id=114331action=edit
patch to limit the head length of skb allocated
Would you care to test this patch to see if it
Il 12/11/2013 11:03, Marc Zyngier ha scritto:
I'd cast my vote (if I have one) towards the sharing a tree method. For
those of us scrambling to get caught up with kvmarm, a reduction in the
number of trees and branches we need to track would be a welcome change.
Not sure what the benefit
On 11 November 2013 23:21, Anthony Liguori anth...@codemonkey.ws wrote:
We're not talking about something obscure here. It's eliminating an
if(0) block.
No, we're not talking about a simple if (0) expression.
What we had in this case was
if (!(env-features[FEAT_1_ECX] CPUID_EXT_XSAVE) ||
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=60620
--- Comment #18 from Folkert van Heusden folk...@vanheusden.com ---
(In reply to Jason Wang from comment #17)
Created attachment 114331 [details]
patch to limit the head length of skb allocated
Would you care to test this patch to see if it
Il 12/11/2013 12:07, Peter Maydell ha scritto:
On 11 November 2013 23:21, Anthony Liguori anth...@codemonkey.ws wrote:
We're not talking about something obscure here. It's eliminating an
if(0) block.
No, we're not talking about a simple if (0) expression.
What we had in this case was
if
On 12 November 2013 12:09, Paolo Bonzini pbonz...@redhat.com wrote:
Il 12/11/2013 12:07, Peter Maydell ha scritto:
For the compiler to eliminate this we are relying on:
* dead-code elimination of code following a 'break'
statement in a case block
* constant-folding of something || 1 to 1
Am 11.11.2013 um 09:08 schrieb Aneesh Kumar K.V
aneesh.ku...@linux.vnet.ibm.com:
From: Aneesh Kumar K.V aneesh.ku...@linux.vnet.ibm.com
This patch make sure we inherit the LE bit correctly in different case
so that we can run Little Endian distro in PR mode
Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar
Il 12/11/2013 13:16, Peter Maydell ha scritto:
On 12 November 2013 12:09, Paolo Bonzini pbonz...@redhat.com wrote:
Il 12/11/2013 12:07, Peter Maydell ha scritto:
For the compiler to eliminate this we are relying on:
* dead-code elimination of code following a 'break'
statement in a case
On 12 November 2013 13:12, Paolo Bonzini pbonz...@redhat.com wrote:
I'm saying it's *reasonable* to expect that -O0 means reduce compile
time, make debugging produce expected results, and try (not too hard) to
not break what works at -O2.
And that's what we've got. There's no requirement, even
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 02:12:56PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 12/11/2013 13:16, Peter Maydell ha scritto:
On 12 November 2013 12:09, Paolo Bonzini pbonz...@redhat.com wrote:
Il 12/11/2013 12:07, Peter Maydell ha scritto:
For the compiler to eliminate this we are relying on:
*
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 01:21:51PM +, Peter Maydell wrote:
(Similarly,
you can put code that's a syntax error inside #if 0,
but that won't work inside an if (0). The solution
is not to do that.)
That's the advantage of using if (0) instead of
Il 12/11/2013 14:23, Gleb Natapov ha scritto:
If -O0 does not do that, let's move debug builds to -O1.
Why not enable dce with -fdce?
First, because clang doesn't have fine-tuned optimization options (at
least I couldn't find them and -fdce doesn't work).
Second, because most optimization
On 12 November 2013 13:12, Paolo Bonzini pbonz...@redhat.com wrote:
If -O0 does not do that, let's move debug builds to -O1.
Isn't this going to sacrifice debuggability? That also seems
like the wrong tradeoff to me.
-- PMM
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe kvm in
the
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 02:57:49PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 12/11/2013 14:23, Gleb Natapov ha scritto:
If -O0 does not do that, let's move debug builds to -O1.
Why not enable dce with -fdce?
First, because clang doesn't have fine-tuned optimization options (at
least I couldn't
On 12 November 2013 14:09, Gleb Natapov g...@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 02:57:49PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 12/11/2013 14:23, Gleb Natapov ha scritto:
If -O0 does not do that, let's move debug builds to -O1.
Why not enable dce with -fdce?
First, because clang doesn't
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=60620
--- Comment #19 from Jason Wang jasow...@redhat.com ---
(In reply to Folkert van Heusden from comment #18)
(In reply to Jason Wang from comment #17)
Created attachment 114331 [details]
patch to limit the head length of skb allocated
Would
Juan Quintela quint...@redhat.com wrote:
Hi
Please, send any topic that you are interested in covering.
Thanks, Juan.
As there are no topics, call is cancelled.
Have a nice day, Juan.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe kvm in
the body of a message to
Il 12/11/2013 15:09, Gleb Natapov ha scritto:
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 02:57:49PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 12/11/2013 14:23, Gleb Natapov ha scritto:
If -O0 does not do that, let's move debug builds to -O1.
Why not enable dce with -fdce?
First, because clang doesn't have fine-tuned
On 24 July 2013 13:50, Anthony Liguori anth...@codemonkey.ws wrote:
I will be hosting a key signing party at this year's KVM Forum.
http://wiki.qemu.org/KeySigningParty2013
Can somebody provide known-good instructions for how to
sign and return keys? I looked on the web and found four
On 12 November 2013 14:57, Paolo Bonzini pbonz...@redhat.com wrote:
Il 12/11/2013 15:09, Gleb Natapov ha scritto:
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 02:57:49PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 12/11/2013 14:23, Gleb Natapov ha scritto:
If -O0 does not do that, let's move debug builds to -O1.
Why not
Peter,
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 02:57:36PM +, Peter Maydell wrote:
Can somebody provide known-good instructions for how to
sign and return keys? I looked on the web and found four
different possible ways to do this (most notably, there
seems to be a split between just send keys back to
Il 12/11/2013 16:13, Peter Maydell ha scritto:
-O1 then for clang.
We can even test in configure for the exact optimizations we want, in
fact. But I think -O1 doesn't sacrifice debuggability that much:
I'm afraid I still don't see why you'd want to sacrifice it
at all,
Is this FUD or
On 12 November 2013 15:21, Paolo Bonzini pbonz...@redhat.com wrote:
Il 12/11/2013 16:13, Peter Maydell ha scritto:
-O1 then for clang.
We can even test in configure for the exact optimizations we want, in
fact. But I think -O1 doesn't sacrifice debuggability that much:
I'm afraid I
On 11/12/2013 08:18 AM, Gabriel L. Somlo wrote:
Peter,
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 02:57:36PM +, Peter Maydell wrote:
Can somebody provide known-good instructions for how to
sign and return keys? I looked on the web and found four
different possible ways to do this (most notably, there
On 12 November 2013 15:42, Eric Blake ebl...@redhat.com wrote:
I personally like how 'pius' automates the sending of
signatures to other recipients.
I had a look at 'pius' since some of the signed-key
emails I've received used it; however I couldn't find
any way to make it write the emails to a
Il 12/11/2013 16:32, Peter Maydell ha scritto:
Is this FUD or do you have examples of bad debuggability of -O1 code?
The clang manpage says specifically Note that Clang debug
information works best at -O0. , and I see no reason to
disbelieve it. In particular, they don't say we definitely
On 12 November 2013 15:58, Paolo Bonzini pbonz...@redhat.com wrote:
I don't really see a reason why QEMU should give clang more weight than
Windows or Mac OS X.
I'm not asking for more weight (and actually my main
reason for caring about clang is exactly MacOSX). I'm
just asking that when a bug
On 12 November 2013 02:07, Paolo Bonzini pbonz...@redhat.com wrote:
Il 12/11/2013 11:03, Marc Zyngier ha scritto:
I'd cast my vote (if I have one) towards the sharing a tree method. For
those of us scrambling to get caught up with kvmarm, a reduction in the
number of trees and branches we
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 8:08 AM, Peter Maydell peter.mayd...@linaro.org wrote:
On 12 November 2013 15:58, Paolo Bonzini pbonz...@redhat.com wrote:
I don't really see a reason why QEMU should give clang more weight than
Windows or Mac OS X.
I'm not asking for more weight (and actually my main
On 12 November 2013 17:04, Anthony Liguori anth...@codemonkey.ws wrote:
QEMU has always been intimately tied to GCC. Heck, it all started as
a giant GCC hack relying on entirely undocumented behavior (dyngen's
disassembly of functions).
It has historically. Blue Swirl put in a lot of work to
On 11/13/2013 03:04 AM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 8:08 AM, Peter Maydell peter.mayd...@linaro.org
wrote:
On 12 November 2013 15:58, Paolo Bonzini pbonz...@redhat.com wrote:
I don't really see a reason why QEMU should give clang more weight than
Windows or Mac OS X.
I'm
On 12 November 2013 18:54, Richard Henderson r...@twiddle.net wrote:
For what it's worth, I think BOTH of the patches that have been posted
should be applied. That is, the patch that does (X || 1) - (1 || X),
and the patch that adds the stub.
I think that makes sense and would be happy with
Am 12.11.2013 19:57, schrieb Peter Maydell:
On 12 November 2013 18:54, Richard Henderson r...@twiddle.net wrote:
For what it's worth, I think BOTH of the patches that have been posted
should be applied. That is, the patch that does (X || 1) - (1 || X),
and the patch that adds the stub.
I
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 07:37:24AM -0500, Alexander Graf wrote:
Am 11.11.2013 um 09:08 schrieb Aneesh Kumar K.V
aneesh.ku...@linux.vnet.ibm.com:
From: Aneesh Kumar K.V aneesh.ku...@linux.vnet.ibm.com
This patch make sure we inherit the LE bit correctly in different case
so that
Il 12/11/2013 19:54, Richard Henderson ha scritto:
For what it's worth, I think BOTH of the patches that have been posted
should be applied. That is, the patch that does (X || 1) - (1 || X),
and the patch that adds the stub.
Frankly I'd have thought this was obvious
It's not that obvious
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 09:29:21PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
Relax the tlb flush condition since we will write-protect the spte out of mmu
lock. Note lockless write-protection only marks the writable spte to readonly
and the spte can be writable only if both SPTE_HOST_WRITEABLE and
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 09:29:20PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
Currently, kvm zaps the large spte if write-protected is needed, the later
read can fault on that spte. Actually, we can make the large spte readonly
instead of making them un-present, the page fault caused by read access can
be
On 11/13/2013 08:53 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 12/11/2013 19:54, Richard Henderson ha scritto:
For what it's worth, I think BOTH of the patches that have been posted
should be applied. That is, the patch that does (X || 1) - (1 || X),
and the patch that adds the stub.
Frankly I'd have
Hello!
My colleague tries to install 64bit windows 2008r2 on centos 6.4 server:
here is kernel version:
# uname -a
Linux gesar 2.6.32-358.23.2.el6.x86_64 #1 SMP Wed Oct 16 18:37:12 UTC
2013 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
during setup ( at early stage ) he got:
Il 13/11/2013 03:27, Richard Henderson ha scritto:
I think it's also worthwhile to implement the kvm api in kvm-stub.c,
unnecessary or not. If you really want compile-time feedback on those that
ought to have been removed by optimization, you could elide them from the stub
file depending on
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 12:27:10PM +1000, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 11/13/2013 08:53 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 12/11/2013 19:54, Richard Henderson ha scritto:
For what it's worth, I think BOTH of the patches that have been posted
should be applied. That is, the patch that does (X || 1)
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 09:23:56AM +0400, Dmitry Melekhov wrote:
Hello!
My colleague tries to install 64bit windows 2008r2 on centos 6.4 server:
here is kernel version:
# uname -a
Linux gesar 2.6.32-358.23.2.el6.x86_64 #1 SMP Wed Oct 16 18:37:12
UTC 2013 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
13.11.2013 11:29, Gleb Natapov пишет:
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 09:23:56AM +0400, Dmitry Melekhov wrote:
Hello!
My colleague tries to install 64bit windows 2008r2 on centos 6.4 server:
here is kernel version:
# uname -a
Linux gesar 2.6.32-358.23.2.el6.x86_64 #1 SMP Wed Oct 16 18:37:12
UTC 2013
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 11:41:47AM +0400, Dmitry Melekhov wrote:
13.11.2013 11:29, Gleb Natapov пишет:
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 09:23:56AM +0400, Dmitry Melekhov wrote:
Hello!
My colleague tries to install 64bit windows 2008r2 on centos 6.4 server:
here is kernel version:
# uname -a
Am 11.11.2013 um 09:08 schrieb Aneesh Kumar K.V
aneesh.ku...@linux.vnet.ibm.com:
From: Aneesh Kumar K.V aneesh.ku...@linux.vnet.ibm.com
This patch make sure we inherit the LE bit correctly in different case
so that we can run Little Endian distro in PR mode
Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar
47 matches
Mail list logo
