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 07:17:43AM +, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-03-16 at 08:48 +0900, Horms wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Ian Campbell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/fs/proc/vmcore.c b/fs/proc/vmcore.c
> > > > index d960507..523e109 100644
> > > > ---
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 08:12 +0530, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> I did not investigate deeper but I got a basic question. How will kexec
> know that underlying 32bit machine supports 64bit extensions or not?
It looks like /proc/cpuinfo flags contains "lm" (which is long mode,
right?) even if the machine
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 08:48 +0900, Horms wrote:
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Ian Campbell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >
> > > diff --git a/fs/proc/vmcore.c b/fs/proc/vmcore.c
> > > index d960507..523e109 100644
> > > --- a/fs/proc/vmcore.c
> > > +++ b/fs/proc/vmcore.c
> > > @@ -514,7 +514,7 @@ static
On Fri, 2007-03-16 at 08:48 +0900, Horms wrote:
Signed-off-by: Ian Campbell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
diff --git a/fs/proc/vmcore.c b/fs/proc/vmcore.c
index d960507..523e109 100644
--- a/fs/proc/vmcore.c
+++ b/fs/proc/vmcore.c
@@ -514,7 +514,7 @@ static int __init
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 08:12 +0530, Vivek Goyal wrote:
I did not investigate deeper but I got a basic question. How will kexec
know that underlying 32bit machine supports 64bit extensions or not?
It looks like /proc/cpuinfo flags contains lm (which is long mode,
right?) even if the machine is
On Fri, Mar 16, 2007 at 07:17:43AM +, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Fri, 2007-03-16 at 08:48 +0900, Horms wrote:
Signed-off-by: Ian Campbell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
diff --git a/fs/proc/vmcore.c b/fs/proc/vmcore.c
index d960507..523e109 100644
--- a/fs/proc/vmcore.c
+++
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 Fri, Mar 16, 2007 at 08:48:08AM +0900, Horms 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
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 Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 01:42:39PM +, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-03-15 at 18:56 +0530, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> >
> > Ideal place for this probably should have been arch dependent
> > crash_dump.h file. But we don't have one and no point introducing one
> > just for this macro.
>
>
On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 01:42:39PM +, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-03-15 at 18:56 +0530, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> >
> > Ideal place for this probably should have been arch dependent
> > crash_dump.h file. But we don't have one and no point introducing one
> > just for this macro.
>
>
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
> > > > > being used at few places in
On Thu, 2007-03-15 at 18:56 +0530, Vivek Goyal wrote:
>
> Ideal place for this probably should have been arch dependent
> crash_dump.h file. But we don't have one and no point introducing one
> just for this macro.
Agreed.
> This change looks good to me.
Is there a kdump tree which you'll
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
> > > > being used at few places in kernel, for example while loading
> > > > module. This will essentially
On Thu, 2007-03-15 at 11:17 +0530, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > > But I think changing this macro might run into issues. It is
> > > being used at few places in kernel, for example while loading
> > > module. This will essentially mean that we allow loading 64bit
> > > x86_64 modules on 32bit i386
On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 11:17:26AM +0530, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 02:07:56PM +0900, Horms wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 10:25:36AM +0530, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 10:46:38AM +0900, Horms wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 05:00:09PM +, Ian
On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 11:17:26AM +0530, Vivek Goyal wrote:
On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 02:07:56PM +0900, Horms wrote:
On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 10:25:36AM +0530, Vivek Goyal wrote:
On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 10:46:38AM +0900, Horms wrote:
On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 05:00:09PM +, Ian Campbell
On Thu, 2007-03-15 at 11:17 +0530, Vivek Goyal wrote:
But I think changing this macro might run into issues. It is
being used at few places in kernel, for example while loading
module. This will essentially mean that we allow loading 64bit
x86_64 modules on 32bit i386 systems?
Yes,
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
being used at few places in kernel, for example while loading
module. This will essentially mean that we
On Thu, 2007-03-15 at 18:56 +0530, Vivek Goyal wrote:
Ideal place for this probably should have been arch dependent
crash_dump.h file. But we don't have one and no point introducing one
just for this macro.
Agreed.
This change looks good to me.
Is there a kdump tree which you'll apply
On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 01:42:39PM +, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Thu, 2007-03-15 at 18:56 +0530, Vivek Goyal wrote:
Ideal place for this probably should have been arch dependent
crash_dump.h file. But we don't have one and no point introducing one
just for this macro.
Agreed.
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
being used at few places in kernel, for example
On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 01:42:39PM +, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Thu, 2007-03-15 at 18:56 +0530, Vivek Goyal wrote:
Ideal place for this probably should have been arch dependent
crash_dump.h file. But we don't have one and no point introducing one
just for this macro.
Agreed.
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 08:48:08AM +0900, Horms 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.
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
On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 02:07:56PM +0900, Horms wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 10:25:36AM +0530, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 10:46:38AM +0900, Horms wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 05:00:09PM +, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > > > The specific case I am encountering is kdump
On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 10:25:36AM +0530, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 10:46:38AM +0900, Horms wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 05:00:09PM +, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > > The specific case I am encountering is kdump under Xen with a 64 bit
> > > hypervisor and 32 bit
On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 10:46:38AM +0900, Horms wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 05:00:09PM +, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > The specific case I am encountering is kdump under Xen with a 64 bit
> > hypervisor and 32 bit kernel/userspace. The dump created is a 64 bit due
> > to the hypervisor but the
On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 05:00:09PM +, Ian Campbell wrote:
> The specific case I am encountering is kdump under Xen with a 64 bit
> hypervisor and 32 bit kernel/userspace. The dump created is a 64 bit due
> to the hypervisor but the dump kernel is 32 bit to match the domain 0
> kernel.
>
>
The specific case I am encountering is kdump under Xen with a 64 bit
hypervisor and 32 bit kernel/userspace. The dump created is a 64 bit due
to the hypervisor but the dump kernel is 32 bit to match the domain 0
kernel.
It's possibly less likely to be useful in a purely native scenario but I
see
The specific case I am encountering is kdump under Xen with a 64 bit
hypervisor and 32 bit kernel/userspace. The dump created is a 64 bit due
to the hypervisor but the dump kernel is 32 bit to match the domain 0
kernel.
It's possibly less likely to be useful in a purely native scenario but I
see
On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 05:00:09PM +, Ian Campbell wrote:
The specific case I am encountering is kdump under Xen with a 64 bit
hypervisor and 32 bit kernel/userspace. The dump created is a 64 bit due
to the hypervisor but the dump kernel is 32 bit to match the domain 0
kernel.
It's
On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 10:46:38AM +0900, Horms wrote:
On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 05:00:09PM +, Ian Campbell wrote:
The specific case I am encountering is kdump under Xen with a 64 bit
hypervisor and 32 bit kernel/userspace. The dump created is a 64 bit due
to the hypervisor but the dump
On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 10:25:36AM +0530, Vivek Goyal wrote:
On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 10:46:38AM +0900, Horms wrote:
On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 05:00:09PM +, Ian Campbell wrote:
The specific case I am encountering is kdump under Xen with a 64 bit
hypervisor and 32 bit kernel/userspace.
On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 02:07:56PM +0900, Horms wrote:
On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 10:25:36AM +0530, Vivek Goyal wrote:
On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 10:46:38AM +0900, Horms wrote:
On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 05:00:09PM +, Ian Campbell wrote:
The specific case I am encountering is kdump under Xen
62 matches
Mail list logo
