* Linus Torvalds ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007, Chris Wright wrote:
> > This also fixes paravirt patching which was broken when text_poke()
> > tried to patch the various pv ops in lookup_address.
>
> Hmm. What is "this"? The revert?
Yes, sorry, your revert also fixes
On Mon, 30 Jul 2007, Chris Wright wrote:
>
> This also fixes paravirt patching which was broken when text_poke()
> tried to patch the various pv ops in lookup_address.
Hmm. What is "this"? The revert?
That said, I do wonder whether virtualization still has problems with
CONFIG_RODATA,
* Linus Torvalds ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jul 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On my Turion64-based HPC nx6325 with the 2.6.23-rc1 x86_64 kernel doing
> >
> > # echo 0 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu1/online
> >
> > causes the system to crash in a spectacular fashion (call traces
* Linus Torvalds ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jul 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On my Turion64-based HPC nx6325 with the 2.6.23-rc1 x86_64 kernel doing
# echo 0 /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu1/online
causes the system to crash in a spectacular fashion (call traces going
On Mon, 30 Jul 2007, Chris Wright wrote:
This also fixes paravirt patching which was broken when text_poke()
tried to patch the various pv ops in lookup_address.
Hmm. What is this? The revert?
That said, I do wonder whether virtualization still has problems with
CONFIG_RODATA, though. We
* Linus Torvalds ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2007, Chris Wright wrote:
This also fixes paravirt patching which was broken when text_poke()
tried to patch the various pv ops in lookup_address.
Hmm. What is this? The revert?
Yes, sorry, your revert also fixes paravirt
On Thu, 26 Jul 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >
> > Rafael, does reverting just this part (and leaving the "text_poke()"
> > cleanups) work for you?
>
> Yes, it does, with the appended fix on top. :-)
Heh, I noticed that myself, but assumed you'd figure it out.
I ended up renaming
On Thursday, 26 July 2007 18:43, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Thu, 26 Jul 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >
> > On my Turion64-based HPC nx6325 with the 2.6.23-rc1 x86_64 kernel doing
> >
> > # echo 0 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu1/online
> >
> > causes the system to crash in a spectacular
On Thu, 26 Jul 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> On my Turion64-based HPC nx6325 with the 2.6.23-rc1 x86_64 kernel doing
>
> # echo 0 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu1/online
>
> causes the system to crash in a spectacular fashion (call traces going
> continuously on the console, no reaction to
Hi,
On my Turion64-based HPC nx6325 with the 2.6.23-rc1 x86_64 kernel doing
# echo 0 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu1/online
causes the system to crash in a spectacular fashion (call traces going
continuously on the console, no reaction to anything except for the power
button). For this reason,
On Thu, 26 Jul 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Rafael, does reverting just this part (and leaving the text_poke()
cleanups) work for you?
Yes, it does, with the appended fix on top. :-)
Heh, I noticed that myself, but assumed you'd figure it out.
I ended up renaming oaddr as addr,
On Thu, 26 Jul 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On my Turion64-based HPC nx6325 with the 2.6.23-rc1 x86_64 kernel doing
# echo 0 /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu1/online
causes the system to crash in a spectacular fashion (call traces going
continuously on the console, no reaction to anything
Hi,
On my Turion64-based HPC nx6325 with the 2.6.23-rc1 x86_64 kernel doing
# echo 0 /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu1/online
causes the system to crash in a spectacular fashion (call traces going
continuously on the console, no reaction to anything except for the power
button). For this reason,
On Thursday, 26 July 2007 18:43, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jul 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On my Turion64-based HPC nx6325 with the 2.6.23-rc1 x86_64 kernel doing
# echo 0 /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu1/online
causes the system to crash in a spectacular fashion (call
14 matches
Mail list logo
