On 09/02/2014 09:22 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 06:03:06AM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
On 08/29/2014 04:55 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 03:44:06PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 29.08.14 at 16:27, wrote:
Sure. Btw, someone also
On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 06:03:06AM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 08/29/2014 04:55 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> >On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 03:44:06PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >On 29.08.14 at 16:27, wrote:
> >>>Sure. Btw, someone also contacted me saying they have the same problem
>
On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 06:03:06AM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
On 08/29/2014 04:55 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 03:44:06PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 29.08.14 at 16:27, stefan.ba...@canonical.com wrote:
Sure. Btw, someone also contacted me saying they have the
On 09/02/2014 09:22 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 06:03:06AM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
On 08/29/2014 04:55 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 03:44:06PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 29.08.14 at 16:27, stefan.ba...@canonical.com wrote:
Sure.
On 08/29/2014 04:55 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 03:44:06PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 29.08.14 at 16:27, wrote:
Sure. Btw, someone also contacted me saying they have the same problem
without
changing the layout but having really big initrd (500M). While that
On 08/29/2014 04:55 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 03:44:06PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 29.08.14 at 16:27, stefan.ba...@canonical.com wrote:
Sure. Btw, someone also contacted me saying they have the same problem
without
changing the layout but having really big
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 03:44:06PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 29.08.14 at 16:27, wrote:
> > Sure. Btw, someone also contacted me saying they have the same problem
> > without
> > changing the layout but having really big initrd (500M). While that feels
> > like
> > it should be
>>> On 29.08.14 at 16:27, wrote:
> Sure. Btw, someone also contacted me saying they have the same problem
> without
> changing the layout but having really big initrd (500M). While that feels
> like
> it should be impossible (if the kernel+initrd+xen stuff has to fix the 512M
> kernel image
On 29/08/14 15:32, Stefan Bader wrote:
> On 29.08.2014 16:19, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> On 29/08/14 09:37, Stefan Bader wrote:
>>> On 29.08.2014 00:42, Andrew Cooper wrote:
On 28/08/2014 19:01, Stefan Bader wrote:
>>> So not much further... but then I think I know what I do next. Probably
On 29.08.2014 16:19, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 29/08/14 09:37, Stefan Bader wrote:
>> On 29.08.2014 00:42, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>> On 28/08/2014 19:01, Stefan Bader wrote:
>> So not much further... but then I think I know what I do next. Probably
>> should
>> have done before. I'll
On 29/08/14 09:37, Stefan Bader wrote:
> On 29.08.2014 00:42, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> On 28/08/2014 19:01, Stefan Bader wrote:
> So not much further... but then I think I know what I do next. Probably
> should
> have done before. I'll replace the WARN_ON in vmalloc that triggers by a
On 29.08.2014 00:42, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 28/08/2014 19:01, Stefan Bader wrote:
So not much further... but then I think I know what I do next. Probably
should
have done before. I'll replace the WARN_ON in vmalloc that triggers by a
panic
and at least get a crash
On 29.08.2014 00:42, Andrew Cooper wrote:
On 28/08/2014 19:01, Stefan Bader wrote:
So not much further... but then I think I know what I do next. Probably
should
have done before. I'll replace the WARN_ON in vmalloc that triggers by a
panic
and at least get a crash dump of that situation
On 29/08/14 09:37, Stefan Bader wrote:
On 29.08.2014 00:42, Andrew Cooper wrote:
On 28/08/2014 19:01, Stefan Bader wrote:
So not much further... but then I think I know what I do next. Probably
should
have done before. I'll replace the WARN_ON in vmalloc that triggers by a
panic
and at
On 29.08.2014 16:19, Andrew Cooper wrote:
On 29/08/14 09:37, Stefan Bader wrote:
On 29.08.2014 00:42, Andrew Cooper wrote:
On 28/08/2014 19:01, Stefan Bader wrote:
So not much further... but then I think I know what I do next. Probably
should
have done before. I'll replace the WARN_ON in
On 29/08/14 15:32, Stefan Bader wrote:
On 29.08.2014 16:19, Andrew Cooper wrote:
On 29/08/14 09:37, Stefan Bader wrote:
On 29.08.2014 00:42, Andrew Cooper wrote:
On 28/08/2014 19:01, Stefan Bader wrote:
So not much further... but then I think I know what I do next. Probably
should
have
On 29.08.14 at 16:27, stefan.ba...@canonical.com wrote:
Sure. Btw, someone also contacted me saying they have the same problem
without
changing the layout but having really big initrd (500M). While that feels
like
it should be impossible (if the kernel+initrd+xen stuff has to fix the 512M
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 03:44:06PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 29.08.14 at 16:27, stefan.ba...@canonical.com wrote:
Sure. Btw, someone also contacted me saying they have the same problem
without
changing the layout but having really big initrd (500M). While that feels
like
it should
On 28/08/2014 19:01, Stefan Bader wrote:
>>> So not much further... but then I think I know what I do next. Probably
>>> should
>>> have done before. I'll replace the WARN_ON in vmalloc that triggers by a
>>> panic
>>> and at least get a crash dump of that situation when it occurs. Then I can
On 28/08/2014 19:01, Stefan Bader wrote:
So not much further... but then I think I know what I do next. Probably
should
have done before. I'll replace the WARN_ON in vmalloc that triggers by a
panic
and at least get a crash dump of that situation when it occurs. Then I can
dig
in there
20 matches
Mail list logo
