On Fri, Mar 16, 2007 at 05:55:59PM +0530, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 16, 2007 at 11:40:55AM +, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > On Fri, 2007-03-16 at 17:08 +0530, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > > On Fri, Mar 16, 2007 at 07:05:30PM +0900, Magnus Damm wrote:
> > > > On 3/16/07, Vivek Goyal <[EMAIL
On Fri, Mar 16, 2007 at 11:40:55AM +, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-03-16 at 17:08 +0530, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 16, 2007 at 07:05:30PM +0900, Magnus Damm wrote:
> > > On 3/16/07, Vivek Goyal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >Got a question. When running 32bit dom0 on 64bit
On Fri, 2007-03-16 at 17:08 +0530, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 16, 2007 at 07:05:30PM +0900, Magnus Damm wrote:
> > On 3/16/07, Vivek Goyal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >Got a question. When running 32bit dom0 on 64bit hypervisor, which
> > >kexec-tools elf loader will kick in? 32bit or
On Fri, Mar 16, 2007 at 07:05:30PM +0900, Magnus Damm wrote:
> On 3/16/07, Vivek Goyal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Got a question. When running 32bit dom0 on 64bit hypervisor, which
> >kexec-tools elf loader will kick in? 32bit or 64bit? Looks like in this
> >case 64bit one. But shouldn't it be
On 3/16/07, Vivek Goyal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Got a question. When running 32bit dom0 on 64bit hypervisor, which
kexec-tools elf loader will kick in? 32bit or 64bit? Looks like in this
case 64bit one. But shouldn't it be 32bit as 32bit OS is running and we
must be using the kexec-tools
On Fri, Mar 16, 2007 at 06:20:14PM +0900, Magnus Damm wrote:
> On 3/16/07, Ian Campbell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Fri, 2007-03-16 at 16:59 +0900, Magnus Damm wrote:
> >> On 3/16/07, Ian Campbell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > On Fri, 2007-03-16 at 11:40 +0900, Magnus Damm wrote:
> >> > >
On Fri, Mar 16, 2007 at 08:50:01AM +, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-03-16 at 16:59 +0900, Magnus Damm wrote:
> > On 3/16/07, Ian Campbell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2007-03-16 at 11:40 +0900, Magnus Damm wrote:
> > > > Right. And maybe it's a good idea to make sure that this
On 3/16/07, Ian Campbell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, 2007-03-16 at 16:59 +0900, Magnus Damm wrote:
> On 3/16/07, Ian Campbell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2007-03-16 at 11:40 +0900, Magnus Damm wrote:
> > > Right. And maybe it's a good idea to make sure that this feature is
> >
On Fri, 2007-03-16 at 16:59 +0900, Magnus Damm wrote:
> On 3/16/07, Ian Campbell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2007-03-16 at 11:40 +0900, Magnus Damm wrote:
> > > Right. And maybe it's a good idea to make sure that this feature is
> > > actually supported by kexec-tools before adding code
On 3/16/07, Ian Campbell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, 2007-03-16 at 11:40 +0900, Magnus Damm wrote:
> Right. And maybe it's a good idea to make sure that this feature is
> actually supported by kexec-tools before adding code to the kernel?
I sent patches to the fastboot list at the same
On 3/16/07, Horms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, Mar 16, 2007 at 08:52:30AM +0530, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> So it will now be left to the user. If he tries to kexec to a 64bit kernel
> on a machine not supporting 32bit extensions, then kexec will not give
> any advance warning.
I feel
On Fri, Mar 16, 2007 at 08:52:30AM +0530, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 16, 2007 at 11:40:07AM +0900, Magnus Damm wrote:
> > On 3/16/07, Horms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 06:56:16PM +0530, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > >> On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 12:22:57PM +, Ian
On Fri, 2007-03-16 at 11:40 +0900, Magnus Damm wrote:
> Right. And maybe it's a good idea to make sure that this feature is
> actually supported by kexec-tools before adding code to the kernel?
I sent patches to the fastboot list at the same time I sent these ones
to support differences in the
On Fri, 2007-03-16 at 11:40 +0900, Magnus Damm wrote:
Right. And maybe it's a good idea to make sure that this feature is
actually supported by kexec-tools before adding code to the kernel?
I sent patches to the fastboot list at the same time I sent these ones
to support differences in the
On Fri, Mar 16, 2007 at 08:52:30AM +0530, Vivek Goyal wrote:
On Fri, Mar 16, 2007 at 11:40:07AM +0900, Magnus Damm wrote:
On 3/16/07, Horms [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 06:56:16PM +0530, Vivek Goyal wrote:
On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 12:22:57PM +, Ian Campbell wrote:
On 3/16/07, Horms [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Mar 16, 2007 at 08:52:30AM +0530, Vivek Goyal wrote:
So it will now be left to the user. If he tries to kexec to a 64bit kernel
on a machine not supporting 32bit extensions, then kexec will not give
any advance warning.
I feel comfortable
On 3/16/07, Ian Campbell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2007-03-16 at 11:40 +0900, Magnus Damm wrote:
Right. And maybe it's a good idea to make sure that this feature is
actually supported by kexec-tools before adding code to the kernel?
I sent patches to the fastboot list at the same time
On Fri, 2007-03-16 at 16:59 +0900, Magnus Damm wrote:
On 3/16/07, Ian Campbell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2007-03-16 at 11:40 +0900, Magnus Damm wrote:
Right. And maybe it's a good idea to make sure that this feature is
actually supported by kexec-tools before adding code to the
On 3/16/07, Ian Campbell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2007-03-16 at 16:59 +0900, Magnus Damm wrote:
On 3/16/07, Ian Campbell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2007-03-16 at 11:40 +0900, Magnus Damm wrote:
Right. And maybe it's a good idea to make sure that this feature is
actually
On Fri, Mar 16, 2007 at 08:50:01AM +, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Fri, 2007-03-16 at 16:59 +0900, Magnus Damm wrote:
On 3/16/07, Ian Campbell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2007-03-16 at 11:40 +0900, Magnus Damm wrote:
Right. And maybe it's a good idea to make sure that this feature is
On Fri, Mar 16, 2007 at 06:20:14PM +0900, Magnus Damm wrote:
On 3/16/07, Ian Campbell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2007-03-16 at 16:59 +0900, Magnus Damm wrote:
On 3/16/07, Ian Campbell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2007-03-16 at 11:40 +0900, Magnus Damm wrote:
Right. And maybe
On 3/16/07, Vivek Goyal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Got a question. When running 32bit dom0 on 64bit hypervisor, which
kexec-tools elf loader will kick in? 32bit or 64bit? Looks like in this
case 64bit one. But shouldn't it be 32bit as 32bit OS is running and we
must be using the kexec-tools binary
On Fri, Mar 16, 2007 at 07:05:30PM +0900, Magnus Damm wrote:
On 3/16/07, Vivek Goyal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Got a question. When running 32bit dom0 on 64bit hypervisor, which
kexec-tools elf loader will kick in? 32bit or 64bit? Looks like in this
case 64bit one. But shouldn't it be 32bit as
On Fri, 2007-03-16 at 17:08 +0530, Vivek Goyal wrote:
On Fri, Mar 16, 2007 at 07:05:30PM +0900, Magnus Damm wrote:
On 3/16/07, Vivek Goyal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Got a question. When running 32bit dom0 on 64bit hypervisor, which
kexec-tools elf loader will kick in? 32bit or 64bit? Looks
On Fri, Mar 16, 2007 at 11:40:55AM +, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Fri, 2007-03-16 at 17:08 +0530, Vivek Goyal wrote:
On Fri, Mar 16, 2007 at 07:05:30PM +0900, Magnus Damm wrote:
On 3/16/07, Vivek Goyal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Got a question. When running 32bit dom0 on 64bit hypervisor,
On Fri, Mar 16, 2007 at 05:55:59PM +0530, Vivek Goyal wrote:
On Fri, Mar 16, 2007 at 11:40:55AM +, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Fri, 2007-03-16 at 17:08 +0530, Vivek Goyal wrote:
On Fri, Mar 16, 2007 at 07:05:30PM +0900, Magnus Damm wrote:
On 3/16/07, Vivek Goyal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Mar 16, 2007 at 11:40:07AM +0900, Magnus Damm wrote:
> On 3/16/07, Horms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 06:56:16PM +0530, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> >> On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 12:22:57PM +, Ian Campbell wrote:
> >> > On Thu, 2007-03-15 at 11:17 +0530, Vivek Goyal
On 3/16/07, Horms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 06:56:16PM +0530, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 12:22:57PM +, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > On Thu, 2007-03-15 at 11:17 +0530, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > > > > But I think changing this macro might run into issues. It
On 3/16/07, Horms [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 06:56:16PM +0530, Vivek Goyal wrote:
On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 12:22:57PM +, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Thu, 2007-03-15 at 11:17 +0530, Vivek Goyal wrote:
But I think changing this macro might run into issues. It is
On Fri, Mar 16, 2007 at 11:40:07AM +0900, Magnus Damm wrote:
On 3/16/07, Horms [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 06:56:16PM +0530, Vivek Goyal wrote:
On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 12:22:57PM +, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Thu, 2007-03-15 at 11:17 +0530, Vivek Goyal wrote:
But
30 matches
Mail list logo
