On 18.05.2016 12:53, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 18.05.2016 12:18, Thomas Huth wrote:
>> On 17.05.2016 19:49, Laurent Vivier wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 17/05/2016 10:37, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 05/17/2016 10:35 AM, Laurent Vivier wrote:
>
> On 12/05/2016 16:23, Laurent Vivier wrote:
>>
On 18.05.2016 12:53, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 18.05.2016 12:18, Thomas Huth wrote:
>> On 17.05.2016 19:49, Laurent Vivier wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 17/05/2016 10:37, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 05/17/2016 10:35 AM, Laurent Vivier wrote:
>
> On 12/05/2016 16:23, Laurent Vivier wrote:
>>
On 18.05.2016 12:18, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 17.05.2016 19:49, Laurent Vivier wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 17/05/2016 10:37, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>> On 05/17/2016 10:35 AM, Laurent Vivier wrote:
On 12/05/2016 16:23, Laurent Vivier wrote:
>
> On 12/05/2016 11:27, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 18.05.2016 12:18, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 17.05.2016 19:49, Laurent Vivier wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 17/05/2016 10:37, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>> On 05/17/2016 10:35 AM, Laurent Vivier wrote:
On 12/05/2016 16:23, Laurent Vivier wrote:
>
> On 12/05/2016 11:27, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 17.05.2016 19:49, Laurent Vivier wrote:
>
>
> On 17/05/2016 10:37, Alexander Graf wrote:
>> On 05/17/2016 10:35 AM, Laurent Vivier wrote:
>>>
>>> On 12/05/2016 16:23, Laurent Vivier wrote:
On 12/05/2016 11:27, Alexander Graf wrote:
> On 05/12/2016 11:10 AM, Laurent Vivier wrote:
On 17.05.2016 19:49, Laurent Vivier wrote:
>
>
> On 17/05/2016 10:37, Alexander Graf wrote:
>> On 05/17/2016 10:35 AM, Laurent Vivier wrote:
>>>
>>> On 12/05/2016 16:23, Laurent Vivier wrote:
On 12/05/2016 11:27, Alexander Graf wrote:
> On 05/12/2016 11:10 AM, Laurent Vivier wrote:
On 17/05/2016 10:37, Alexander Graf wrote:
> On 05/17/2016 10:35 AM, Laurent Vivier wrote:
>>
>> On 12/05/2016 16:23, Laurent Vivier wrote:
>>>
>>> On 12/05/2016 11:27, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 05/12/2016 11:10 AM, Laurent Vivier wrote:
> On 11/05/2016 13:49, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 17/05/2016 10:37, Alexander Graf wrote:
> On 05/17/2016 10:35 AM, Laurent Vivier wrote:
>>
>> On 12/05/2016 16:23, Laurent Vivier wrote:
>>>
>>> On 12/05/2016 11:27, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 05/12/2016 11:10 AM, Laurent Vivier wrote:
> On 11/05/2016 13:49, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 05/17/2016 10:35 AM, Laurent Vivier wrote:
On 12/05/2016 16:23, Laurent Vivier wrote:
On 12/05/2016 11:27, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 05/12/2016 11:10 AM, Laurent Vivier wrote:
On 11/05/2016 13:49, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 05/11/2016 01:14 PM, Laurent Vivier wrote:
On 11/05/2016 12:35,
On 05/17/2016 10:35 AM, Laurent Vivier wrote:
On 12/05/2016 16:23, Laurent Vivier wrote:
On 12/05/2016 11:27, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 05/12/2016 11:10 AM, Laurent Vivier wrote:
On 11/05/2016 13:49, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 05/11/2016 01:14 PM, Laurent Vivier wrote:
On 11/05/2016 12:35,
On 12/05/2016 16:23, Laurent Vivier wrote:
>
>
> On 12/05/2016 11:27, Alexander Graf wrote:
>> On 05/12/2016 11:10 AM, Laurent Vivier wrote:
>>>
>>> On 11/05/2016 13:49, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 05/11/2016 01:14 PM, Laurent Vivier wrote:
> On 11/05/2016 12:35, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 12/05/2016 16:23, Laurent Vivier wrote:
>
>
> On 12/05/2016 11:27, Alexander Graf wrote:
>> On 05/12/2016 11:10 AM, Laurent Vivier wrote:
>>>
>>> On 11/05/2016 13:49, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 05/11/2016 01:14 PM, Laurent Vivier wrote:
> On 11/05/2016 12:35, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 12/05/2016 11:27, Alexander Graf wrote:
> On 05/12/2016 11:10 AM, Laurent Vivier wrote:
>>
>> On 11/05/2016 13:49, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>> On 05/11/2016 01:14 PM, Laurent Vivier wrote:
On 11/05/2016 12:35, Alexander Graf wrote:
> On 03/15/2016 09:18 PM, Laurent Vivier wrote:
>>
On 12/05/2016 11:27, Alexander Graf wrote:
> On 05/12/2016 11:10 AM, Laurent Vivier wrote:
>>
>> On 11/05/2016 13:49, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>> On 05/11/2016 01:14 PM, Laurent Vivier wrote:
On 11/05/2016 12:35, Alexander Graf wrote:
> On 03/15/2016 09:18 PM, Laurent Vivier wrote:
>>
On 05/12/2016 11:10 AM, Laurent Vivier wrote:
On 11/05/2016 13:49, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 05/11/2016 01:14 PM, Laurent Vivier wrote:
On 11/05/2016 12:35, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 03/15/2016 09:18 PM, Laurent Vivier wrote:
While writing some instruction tests for kvm-unit-tests for
On 05/12/2016 11:10 AM, Laurent Vivier wrote:
On 11/05/2016 13:49, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 05/11/2016 01:14 PM, Laurent Vivier wrote:
On 11/05/2016 12:35, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 03/15/2016 09:18 PM, Laurent Vivier wrote:
While writing some instruction tests for kvm-unit-tests for
On 11/05/2016 13:49, Alexander Graf wrote:
> On 05/11/2016 01:14 PM, Laurent Vivier wrote:
>>
>> On 11/05/2016 12:35, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>> On 03/15/2016 09:18 PM, Laurent Vivier wrote:
While writing some instruction tests for kvm-unit-tests for powerpc,
I've found that illegal
On 11/05/2016 13:49, Alexander Graf wrote:
> On 05/11/2016 01:14 PM, Laurent Vivier wrote:
>>
>> On 11/05/2016 12:35, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>> On 03/15/2016 09:18 PM, Laurent Vivier wrote:
While writing some instruction tests for kvm-unit-tests for powerpc,
I've found that illegal
On 05/11/2016 01:14 PM, Laurent Vivier wrote:
On 11/05/2016 12:35, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 03/15/2016 09:18 PM, Laurent Vivier wrote:
While writing some instruction tests for kvm-unit-tests for powerpc,
I've found that illegal instructions are not managed correctly with
kvm-pr,
while it is
On 05/11/2016 01:14 PM, Laurent Vivier wrote:
On 11/05/2016 12:35, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 03/15/2016 09:18 PM, Laurent Vivier wrote:
While writing some instruction tests for kvm-unit-tests for powerpc,
I've found that illegal instructions are not managed correctly with
kvm-pr,
while it is
On 11/05/2016 12:35, Alexander Graf wrote:
> On 03/15/2016 09:18 PM, Laurent Vivier wrote:
>> While writing some instruction tests for kvm-unit-tests for powerpc,
>> I've found that illegal instructions are not managed correctly with
>> kvm-pr,
>> while it is fine with kvm-hv.
>>
>> When an
On 11/05/2016 12:35, Alexander Graf wrote:
> On 03/15/2016 09:18 PM, Laurent Vivier wrote:
>> While writing some instruction tests for kvm-unit-tests for powerpc,
>> I've found that illegal instructions are not managed correctly with
>> kvm-pr,
>> while it is fine with kvm-hv.
>>
>> When an
On 03/15/2016 09:18 PM, Laurent Vivier wrote:
While writing some instruction tests for kvm-unit-tests for powerpc,
I've found that illegal instructions are not managed correctly with kvm-pr,
while it is fine with kvm-hv.
When an illegal instruction (like ".long 0") is processed by kvm-pr,
the
On 03/15/2016 09:18 PM, Laurent Vivier wrote:
While writing some instruction tests for kvm-unit-tests for powerpc,
I've found that illegal instructions are not managed correctly with kvm-pr,
while it is fine with kvm-hv.
When an illegal instruction (like ".long 0") is processed by kvm-pr,
the
On 09/05/2016 10:14, Thomas Huth wrote:
>> > Tested-by: Thomas Huth
> Ping!
>
> Alex, Paul, could you please pick up this patch? This patch is required
> to get the kvm-unit-tests working properly with kvm-pr, so I'd be glad
> if we could get this included finally...
I have
On 09/05/2016 10:14, Thomas Huth wrote:
>> > Tested-by: Thomas Huth
> Ping!
>
> Alex, Paul, could you please pick up this patch? This patch is required
> to get the kvm-unit-tests working properly with kvm-pr, so I'd be glad
> if we could get this included finally...
I have a pull request for
On 21.04.2016 11:25, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 15.03.2016 21:18, Laurent Vivier wrote:
>> While writing some instruction tests for kvm-unit-tests for powerpc,
>> I've found that illegal instructions are not managed correctly with kvm-pr,
>> while it is fine with kvm-hv.
>>
>> When an illegal
On 21.04.2016 11:25, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 15.03.2016 21:18, Laurent Vivier wrote:
>> While writing some instruction tests for kvm-unit-tests for powerpc,
>> I've found that illegal instructions are not managed correctly with kvm-pr,
>> while it is fine with kvm-hv.
>>
>> When an illegal
On 15.03.2016 21:18, Laurent Vivier wrote:
> While writing some instruction tests for kvm-unit-tests for powerpc,
> I've found that illegal instructions are not managed correctly with kvm-pr,
> while it is fine with kvm-hv.
>
> When an illegal instruction (like ".long 0") is processed by kvm-pr,
On 15.03.2016 21:18, Laurent Vivier wrote:
> While writing some instruction tests for kvm-unit-tests for powerpc,
> I've found that illegal instructions are not managed correctly with kvm-pr,
> while it is fine with kvm-hv.
>
> When an illegal instruction (like ".long 0") is processed by kvm-pr,
Ping?
On 15/03/2016 21:18, Laurent Vivier wrote:
> While writing some instruction tests for kvm-unit-tests for powerpc,
> I've found that illegal instructions are not managed correctly with kvm-pr,
> while it is fine with kvm-hv.
>
> When an illegal instruction (like ".long 0") is processed by
Ping?
On 15/03/2016 21:18, Laurent Vivier wrote:
> While writing some instruction tests for kvm-unit-tests for powerpc,
> I've found that illegal instructions are not managed correctly with kvm-pr,
> while it is fine with kvm-hv.
>
> When an illegal instruction (like ".long 0") is processed by
Hi,
as Paolo has merged the test into kvm-unit-tests, this patch (and
original bug) can be now tested with it.
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/virt/kvm/kvm-unit-tests.git
at least:
be9b007 powerpc: add test to check invalid instruction trap
Run this with KVM-PR and check your dmesg:
Hi,
as Paolo has merged the test into kvm-unit-tests, this patch (and
original bug) can be now tested with it.
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/virt/kvm/kvm-unit-tests.git
at least:
be9b007 powerpc: add test to check invalid instruction trap
Run this with KVM-PR and check your dmesg:
While writing some instruction tests for kvm-unit-tests for powerpc,
I've found that illegal instructions are not managed correctly with kvm-pr,
while it is fine with kvm-hv.
When an illegal instruction (like ".long 0") is processed by kvm-pr,
the kernel logs are filled with:
Couldn't
While writing some instruction tests for kvm-unit-tests for powerpc,
I've found that illegal instructions are not managed correctly with kvm-pr,
while it is fine with kvm-hv.
When an illegal instruction (like ".long 0") is processed by kvm-pr,
the kernel logs are filled with:
Couldn't
36 matches
Mail list logo