On 23.10.2009, at 10:41, Jan Kiszka wrote:
Alexander Graf wrote:
From: Arnd Bergmann a...@arndb.de
With big endian userspace, we can't quite figure out if a pointer
is 32 bit (shifted 32) or 64 bit when we read a 64 bit pointer.
This is what happens with dirty logging. To get the pointer
Alexander Graf wrote:
On 23.10.2009, at 10:41, Jan Kiszka wrote:
Alexander Graf wrote:
From: Arnd Bergmann a...@arndb.de
With big endian userspace, we can't quite figure out if a pointer
is 32 bit (shifted 32) or 64 bit when we read a 64 bit pointer.
This is what happens with dirty
On 22.10.2009, at 12:23, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 10/21/2009 04:08 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
From: Arnd Bergmanna...@arndb.de
With big endian userspace, we can't quite figure out if a pointer
is 32 bit (shifted 32) or 64 bit when we read a 64 bit pointer.
This is what happens with dirty
From: Arnd Bergmann a...@arndb.de
With big endian userspace, we can't quite figure out if a pointer
is 32 bit (shifted 32) or 64 bit when we read a 64 bit pointer.
This is what happens with dirty logging. To get the pointer interpreted
correctly, we thus need Arnd's patch to implement a compat
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 04:08:29PM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
From: Arnd Bergmann a...@arndb.de
With big endian userspace, we can't quite figure out if a pointer
is 32 bit (shifted 32) or 64 bit when we read a 64 bit pointer.
This is what happens with dirty logging. To get the pointer
From: Arnd Bergmann a...@arndb.de
With big endian userspace, we can't quite figure out if a pointer
is 32 bit (shifted 32) or 64 bit when we read a 64 bit pointer.
This is what happens with dirty logging. To get the pointer interpreted
correctly, we thus need Arnd's patch to implement a compat
