On 04/09/2011 03:34 AM, Ian Campbell wrote:
Actually it does - see the #ifndef CONFIG_X86_CMPXCHG section
in asm/cmpxchg_32.h.
Hm, OK. Still, I'm happiest with that dependency in case someone
knobbles the cpu to exclude cmpxchg and breaks things.
Dropping the TSC patch is sensible though?
On Fri, 2011-04-08 at 11:24 -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
On 04/08/2011 08:42 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 08.04.11 at 17:25, Jeremy Fitzhardinge jer...@goop.org wrote:
On 04/07/2011 11:38 PM, Ian Campbell wrote:
Is there any downside to this patch (is X86_CMPXCHG in the same sort of
(dropping netdev and the visws list)
On Thu, 2011-04-07 at 11:07 -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
On 04/06/2011 11:58 PM, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Wed, 2011-04-06 at 22:45 +0100, David Miller wrote:
From: Ian Campbell ian.campb...@eu.citrix.com
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2011 10:55:55 +0100
You
(dropping netdev and visws list)
On Thu, 2011-04-07 at 18:00 +0100, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
On 04/06/2011 11:58 PM, Ian Campbell wrote:
I'm not sure why ELAN belongs in the EXTENDED_PLATFORM option space
rather than in the CPU choice option, since its only impact seems to be
on -march,
On 04/07/2011 11:38 PM, Ian Campbell wrote:
Not really. The TSC register is a requirement, but that's going to be
present on any CPU which can boot Xen. We don't need any of the
kernel's TSC machinery though.
So why the Kconfig dependency then? In principal a kernel compiled for a
non-TSC
On 08.04.11 at 17:25, Jeremy Fitzhardinge jer...@goop.org wrote:
On 04/07/2011 11:38 PM, Ian Campbell wrote:
Is there any downside to this patch (is X86_CMPXCHG in the same sort of
boat?)
Only if we don't use cmpxchg in shared memory with other domains or the
hypervisor. (I don't think it
On 04/08/2011 08:42 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 08.04.11 at 17:25, Jeremy Fitzhardinge jer...@goop.org wrote:
On 04/07/2011 11:38 PM, Ian Campbell wrote:
Is there any downside to this patch (is X86_CMPXCHG in the same sort of
boat?)
Only if we don't use cmpxchg in shared memory with other
On 04/07/2011 11:46 PM, Ian Campbell wrote:
Any reason not switch it over at this point then?
Not really.
-hpa
___
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
On Wed, 2011-04-06 at 22:45 +0100, David Miller wrote:
From: Ian Campbell ian.campb...@eu.citrix.com
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2011 10:55:55 +0100
You mean the !X86_VISWS I presume? It doesn't make sense to me either.
No, I think 32-bit x86 allmodconfig elides XEN because of it's X86_TSC
On 04/06/2011 11:58 PM, Ian Campbell wrote:
I'm not sure why ELAN belongs in the EXTENDED_PLATFORM option space
rather than in the CPU choice option, since its only impact seems to be
on -march, MODULE_PROC_FAMILY and some cpufreq drivers which doesn't
sound like an extended platform to me
On 04/06/2011 11:58 PM, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Wed, 2011-04-06 at 22:45 +0100, David Miller wrote:
From: Ian Campbell ian.campb...@eu.citrix.com
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2011 10:55:55 +0100
You mean the !X86_VISWS I presume? It doesn't make sense to me either.
No, I think 32-bit x86 allmodconfig
From: Ian Campbell ian.campb...@eu.citrix.com
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2011 10:55:55 +0100
You mean the !X86_VISWS I presume? It doesn't make sense to me either.
No, I think 32-bit x86 allmodconfig elides XEN because of it's X86_TSC
dependency.
And, well, you could type make allmodconfig on your tree
Campbell ian.campb...@citrix.com
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2011 10:27:47 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] xen: drop anti-dependency on X86_VISWS
This seems to have been added in f0f32fccbffa to avoid a conflict arising from
the long deceased ARCH_SETUP() macro and subsequently pushed down to the XEN
option.
As far as I
13 matches
Mail list logo
