[Xen-devel] [ovmf test] 102285: all pass - PUSHED

flight 102285 ovmf real [real] http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/102285/ Perfect :-) All tests in this flight passed as required version targeted for testing: ovmf 2adf689cb7c66f4790a7d0a9e7e99aad6ebee638 baseline version: ovmf

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH V5] x86/vm_event: Added support for VM_EVENT_REASON_INTERRUPT

On 11/16/2016 09:22 AM, Tian, Kevin wrote: > Looks not working with APICv virtual interrupt delivery... It's only meant to work with "regular" injections (we'd like to be able to tell if xc_hvm_inject_trap() can succeed). APICv support could be a later patch, if desirable (AFAICT, the two types

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH V5] x86/vm_event: Added support for VM_EVENT_REASON_INTERRUPT

> From: Razvan Cojocaru [mailto:rcojoc...@bitdefender.com] > Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2016 12:09 AM > > Added support for a new event type, VM_EVENT_REASON_INTERRUPT, > which is now fired in a one-shot manner when enabled via the new > VM_EVENT_FLAG_GET_NEXT_INTERRUPT vm_event response flag.

[Xen-devel] [qemu-mainline test] 102275: regressions - FAIL

flight 102275 qemu-mainline real [real] http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/102275/ Regressions :-( Tests which did not succeed and are blocking, including tests which could not be run: test-amd64-i386-xl-qemuu-debianhvm-amd64-xsm 6 xen-boot fail REGR. vs. 101909

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v8] This is ABI for the two halves of a Para-virtual sound driver to communicate with each to other.

If these are all the comments then I'll start preparing patch v9 Thank you all for reviewing and providing feedback Oleksandr Andrushchenko ___ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH for-4.8 1/2] x86/vmx: Correct the long mode check in vmx_cpuid_intercept()

> From: Andrew Cooper [mailto:andrew.coop...@citrix.com] > Sent: Monday, November 14, 2016 7:01 PM > > %cs.L may be set in a legacy mode segment, or clear in a compatibility mode > segment; it is not the correct way to check for long mode being active. > > Both of these situations result in

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xen/x86: Increase xen_e820_map to E820_X_MAX possible entries

On 15/11/16 01:11, Alex Thorlton wrote: > On systems with sufficiently large e820 tables, and several IOAPICs, it > is possible for the XENMEM_machine_memory_map callback (and its > counterpart, XENMEM_memory_map) to attempt to return an e820 table with > more than 128 entries. This callback adds

Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC PATCH] xen/x86: Increase xen_e820_map to E820_X_MAX possible entries

On 15/11/16 16:22, Alex Thorlton wrote: > On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 10:55:49AM +0100, Juergen Gross wrote: >> I'd go with the new error code. What about E2BIG or ENOSPC? >> >> I think the hypervisor should fill in the number of entries required >> in this case. >> >> In case nobody objects I can

Re: [Xen-devel] Bug in hash changes to netback in 4.7.2 kernel

Has there been any update to this bug/issue last discussed on Tue 6 Sep 2016 14:37:21 +0100? Under Debian stretch running Xen & kernel version 4.8.0-1-amd64 I have a Windows HVM that cannot communicate with other PVM domU instances on the same dom0. The PVM domU instances report: "net eth0:

[Xen-devel] [ovmf baseline-only test] 68046: all pass

This run is configured for baseline tests only. flight 68046 ovmf real [real] http://osstest.xs.citrite.net/~osstest/testlogs/logs/68046/ Perfect :-) All tests in this flight passed as required version targeted for testing: ovmf 86a1eca2101686d476ab191f0511b44e369fd8a7 baseline

[Xen-devel] [xen-unstable test] 102272: trouble: blocked/broken/fail/pass

flight 102272 xen-unstable real [real] http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/102272/ Failures and problems with tests :-( Tests which did not succeed and are blocking, including tests which could not be run: build-armhf-pvops 3 host-install(3)broken REGR. vs.

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v7 06/11] x86, paravirt: Add interface to support kvm/xen vcpu preempted check

在 2016/11/15 23:47, Peter Zijlstra 写道: On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 05:08:33AM -0400, Pan Xinhui wrote: diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt_types.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt_types.h index 0f400c0..38c3bb7 100644 --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt_types.h +++

[Xen-devel] [ovmf test] 102279: all pass - PUSHED

flight 102279 ovmf real [real] http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/102279/ Perfect :-) All tests in this flight passed as required version targeted for testing: ovmf 86a1eca2101686d476ab191f0511b44e369fd8a7 baseline version: ovmf

Re: [Xen-devel] [Xen-users] Dynamic Migration and Load Balancing

As far as I can tell in the past decade, energy efficiency, dynamic migration, load-balancing, etc. in virtualization platforms, server farms and cloud computing infrastructures have been discussed and researched which are not new to the academic and industry. A simple search result in IEEE:

[Xen-devel] [ovmf baseline-only test] 68045: all pass

This run is configured for baseline tests only. flight 68045 ovmf real [real] http://osstest.xs.citrite.net/~osstest/testlogs/logs/68045/ Perfect :-) All tests in this flight passed as required version targeted for testing: ovmf 84083b12f234b62fb133d8c47ee4ab95f3b0eef9 baseline

Re: [Xen-devel] [OSSTEST PATCH v7 2/3] ts-openstack-tempest: Run Tempest to check OpenStack

On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 12:33:33PM +, Anthony PERARD wrote: > This script runs the OpenStack integration test suite, Tempest. > > Signed-off-by: Anthony PERARD > Acked-by: Ian Campbell > Acked-by: Ian Jackson >

Re: [Xen-devel] [OSSTEST PATCH v7 1/3] ts-openstack-deploy: Deploy OpenStack on a host with devstack

On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 12:33:32PM +, Anthony PERARD wrote: > This script installs any necessary packages and clones all of the OpenStack > trees which are used by devstack to deploy OpenStack. > > Signed-off-by: Anthony PERARD .. snip.. > diff --git

[Xen-devel] [qemu-mainline test] 102263: regressions - FAIL

flight 102263 qemu-mainline real [real] http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/102263/ Regressions :-( Tests which did not succeed and are blocking, including tests which could not be run: test-amd64-amd64-xl-qcow2 9 debian-di-installfail REGR. vs. 101909

[Xen-devel] OSSTest, standalone, weird end of invocation.

Hey Ian, I've my test machine, and I can run some of the standalone tests. But everytime I run any of the jobs I get: .. snip.. 2016-11-16 00:07:55 Z setting xtfbuildjob=build-amd64-xtf 2016-11-16 00:07:55 Z log capturing not enabled + rc=0 + date -u +%Y-%m-%d %H:%M:%S Z exit status 0 2016-11-16

[Xen-devel] [xen-unstable-smoke test] 102271: tolerable all pass - PUSHED

flight 102271 xen-unstable-smoke real [real] http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/102271/ Failures :-/ but no regressions. Tests which did not succeed, but are not blocking: test-amd64-amd64-libvirt 12 migrate-support-checkfail never pass test-armhf-armhf-xl

Re: [Xen-devel] ACPI fixmap overflow

On 11/15/2016 03:44 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote: > On 15/11/2016 20:39, Boris Ostrovsky wrote: >> On 11/15/2016 02:45 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote: >>> On 15/11/16 19:34, Boris Ostrovsky wrote: In addition to running out of e820 entries on that large machine that Alex was referring to in [0] he

Re: [Xen-devel] ACPI fixmap overflow

On 15/11/2016 20:39, Boris Ostrovsky wrote: > On 11/15/2016 02:45 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote: >> On 15/11/16 19:34, Boris Ostrovsky wrote: >>> In addition to running out of e820 entries on that large machine that >>> Alex was referring to in [0] he is also running out of ACPI fixmap space >>> while

Re: [Xen-devel] ACPI fixmap overflow

On 11/15/2016 02:45 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote: > On 15/11/16 19:34, Boris Ostrovsky wrote: >> In addition to running out of e820 entries on that large machine that >> Alex was referring to in [0] he is also running out of ACPI fixmap space >> while parsing MADT (the box has *lots* of processors).

[Xen-devel] [xen-unstable baseline-only test] 68042: tolerable FAIL

This run is configured for baseline tests only. flight 68042 xen-unstable real [real] http://osstest.xs.citrite.net/~osstest/testlogs/logs/68042/ Failures :-/ but no regressions. Regressions which are regarded as allowable (not blocking): test-xtf-amd64-amd64-1 10 xtf-fep

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 08/11] pvh/acpi: Handle ACPI accesses for PVH guests

On 11/15/2016 03:07 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote: > On 15/11/16 19:38, Boris Ostrovsky wrote: >> On 11/15/2016 02:19 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote: >>> On 15/11/16 15:56, Jan Beulich wrote: >>> On 15.11.16 at 16:44, wrote: > On 11/15/2016 10:17 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 08/11] pvh/acpi: Handle ACPI accesses for PVH guests

On 15/11/16 19:38, Boris Ostrovsky wrote: > On 11/15/2016 02:19 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote: >> On 15/11/16 15:56, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 15.11.16 at 16:44, wrote: On 11/15/2016 10:17 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >> The other option was XEN_X86_EMU_ACPI. Would it

Re: [Xen-devel] ACPI fixmap overflow

On 15/11/16 19:34, Boris Ostrovsky wrote: > In addition to running out of e820 entries on that large machine that > Alex was referring to in [0] he is also running out of ACPI fixmap space > while parsing MADT (the box has *lots* of processors). The > quick-and-dirty solution is to increase

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 08/11] pvh/acpi: Handle ACPI accesses for PVH guests

On 11/15/2016 02:19 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote: > On 15/11/16 15:56, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 15.11.16 at 16:44, wrote: >>> On 11/15/2016 10:17 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: > The other option was XEN_X86_EMU_ACPI. Would it be better? As that's a little too wide (and

[Xen-devel] ACPI fixmap overflow

In addition to running out of e820 entries on that large machine that Alex was referring to in [0] he is also running out of ACPI fixmap space while parsing MADT (the box has *lots* of processors). The quick-and-dirty solution is to increase NUM_FIXMAP_ACPI_PAGES but I wonder whether we should

Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC] Shared coprocessor framework

On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 02:04:25PM +0200, Artem Mygaiev wrote: > On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 10:43 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk > wrote: > > Does this also mean that the hypervisor has to know the co-processors? > > As in how to start/stop them? And how to tell them to

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 08/11] pvh/acpi: Handle ACPI accesses for PVH guests

On 15/11/16 15:56, Jan Beulich wrote: On 15.11.16 at 16:44, wrote: >> On 11/15/2016 10:17 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: The other option was XEN_X86_EMU_ACPI. Would it be better? >>> As that's a little too wide (and I think someone else had also >>> disliked it for

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v8] This is ABI for the two halves of a Para-virtual sound driver to communicate with each to other.

On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 03:39:34AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> On 11.11.16 at 22:24, wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 10:51:33PM +0200, Andrushchenko, Oleksandr wrote: > >> + * Addressing > >> - > >> +

[Xen-devel] [xen-unstable test] 102258: tolerable FAIL

flight 102258 xen-unstable real [real] http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/102258/ Failures :-/ but no regressions. Tests which are failing intermittently (not blocking): test-armhf-armhf-xl-vhd 6 xen-boot fail in 102243 pass in 102258 test-armhf-armhf-xl-rtds 15

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 02/11] acpi: Define ACPI IO registers for PVH guests

On 15/11/16 16:58, Boris Ostrovsky wrote: > On 11/15/2016 11:33 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 15.11.16 at 17:23, wrote: >>> On 11/15/2016 10:53 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>> On 15.11.16 at 16:41, wrote: > On 11/15/2016 10:13 AM, Jan

[Xen-devel] [xen-unstable-smoke test] 102267: tolerable all pass - PUSHED

flight 102267 xen-unstable-smoke real [real] http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/102267/ Failures :-/ but no regressions. Tests which did not succeed, but are not blocking: test-amd64-amd64-libvirt 12 migrate-support-checkfail never pass test-armhf-armhf-xl

[Xen-devel] Dynamic Migration and Load Balancing

Greetings all, I am a research student and interested in study of VM migration & load balancing of VMs dynamically. I have read https://wiki.xen.org/wiki/Migration & https://www.suse.com/documentation/sles-12/book_virt/data/sec_xen_manage_migrate.html Is there any option to have Migration

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 01/11] x86/domctl: Add XEN_DOMCTL_set_avail_vcpus

On 15/11/16 17:04, Boris Ostrovsky wrote: > On 11/15/2016 11:41 AM, Andrew Cooper wrote: >> It also occurs to me that you necessarily need a get_avail_vcpus >> hypercall to be able to use this interface sensibly from the toolstack. > We could modify getdomaininfo but that would make

[Xen-devel] [ovmf test] 102266: all pass - PUSHED

flight 102266 ovmf real [real] http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/102266/ Perfect :-) All tests in this flight passed as required version targeted for testing: ovmf 84083b12f234b62fb133d8c47ee4ab95f3b0eef9 baseline version: ovmf

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 01/11] x86/domctl: Add XEN_DOMCTL_set_avail_vcpus

On 11/15/2016 11:41 AM, Andrew Cooper wrote: > > It also occurs to me that you necessarily need a get_avail_vcpus > hypercall to be able to use this interface sensibly from the toolstack. We could modify getdomaininfo but that would make set_avail_vcpus domctl non-symmetrical.

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 02/11] acpi: Define ACPI IO registers for PVH guests

>>> On 15.11.16 at 17:58, wrote: > On 11/15/2016 11:33 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 15.11.16 at 17:23, wrote: >>> On 11/15/2016 10:53 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>> On 15.11.16 at 16:41, wrote: > On

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 02/11] acpi: Define ACPI IO registers for PVH guests

On 11/15/2016 11:33 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: On 15.11.16 at 17:23, wrote: >> On 11/15/2016 10:53 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 15.11.16 at 16:41, wrote: On 11/15/2016 10:13 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: On 15.11.16 at 15:47,

[Xen-devel] [ovmf baseline-only test] 68043: all pass

This run is configured for baseline tests only. flight 68043 ovmf real [real] http://osstest.xs.citrite.net/~osstest/testlogs/logs/68043/ Perfect :-) All tests in this flight passed as required version targeted for testing: ovmf 7c7453b5d6302227264b096b528ba9461b2a68d4 baseline

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 01/11] x86/domctl: Add XEN_DOMCTL_set_avail_vcpus

On 14/11/16 18:44, Boris Ostrovsky wrote: > On 11/14/2016 01:19 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote: >> On 14/11/16 17:48, Boris Ostrovsky wrote: >>> On 11/14/2016 12:17 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote: >> I am not convinced though that we can start enforcing this new VCPU >> count, at least for PV guests.

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 02/11] acpi: Define ACPI IO registers for PVH guests

>>> On 15.11.16 at 17:23, wrote: > On 11/15/2016 10:53 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 15.11.16 at 16:41, wrote: >>> On 11/15/2016 10:13 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>> On 15.11.16 at 15:47, wrote: > On

[Xen-devel] [ANNOUNCEMENT] Xen 4.8 RC6

Hi all Xen 4.8 RC6 is tagged. You can check it out from xen.git: git://xenbits.xen.org/xen.git 4.8.0-rc6 For you convenience, please find tarball and signature at: https://downloads.xenproject.org/release/xen/4.8.0-rc6/ Please send bug reports and test reports to

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 02/11] acpi: Define ACPI IO registers for PVH guests

On 11/15/2016 10:53 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: On 15.11.16 at 16:41, wrote: >> On 11/15/2016 10:13 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 15.11.16 at 15:47, wrote: On 11/15/2016 03:47 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >> ---

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH for-4.8] tools/configure: Drop -lcrypto search

On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 04:04:05PM +, Wei Liu wrote: > On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 03:09:50PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: > > This seems to be looking for a function MD5. But nothing uses it. > > The build works fine if this is disabled and libcrypto is not > > installed. > > > > This check was

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2] tools/libacpi: Be specific about which DSDT files to build

>>> On 15.11.16 at 17:04, wrote: > There is no reason to build, for example, dsdt_pvh.asl for hvmloader. We > pass which DSDTs to build via DSDT_FILES parameter. > > If DSDT_FILES is empty all DSDTs for a particular architecture will be > built. > > Signed-off-by:

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2] x86/EFI: meet further spec requirements for runtime calls

>>> On 15.11.16 at 16:47, wrote: > On 14/11/16 10:32, Jan Beulich wrote: >> So far we didn't guarantee 16-byte alignment of the stack: While (so >> far) we don't tell the compiler to use smaller alignment, we also don't >> guarantee 16-byte alignment when establishing

[Xen-devel] [PATCH v2] tools/libacpi: Be specific about which DSDT files to build

There is no reason to build, for example, dsdt_pvh.asl for hvmloader. We pass which DSDTs to build via DSDT_FILES parameter. If DSDT_FILES is empty all DSDTs for a particular architecture will be built. Signed-off-by: Boris Ostrovsky --- Changes in v2: * Simpler

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH for-4.8] tools/configure: Drop -lcrypto search

On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 03:09:50PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: > This seems to be looking for a function MD5. But nothing uses it. > The build works fine if this is disabled and libcrypto is not > installed. > > This check was first introduced in 68a3e1e87325 "[TOOLS] Add more > checks for devel

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 08/11] pvh/acpi: Handle ACPI accesses for PVH guests

>>> On 15.11.16 at 16:44, wrote: > On 11/15/2016 10:17 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>> The other option was XEN_X86_EMU_ACPI. Would it be better? >> As that's a little too wide (and I think someone else had also >> disliked it for that reason), how about XEN_X86_EMU_ACPI_FF

Re: [Xen-devel] Xen like VirtualBox

Hi Jason, On Tue, 2016-11-15 at 14:05 +, Jason Long wrote: > Thank you but I guess it is serious for Xen. > Are you Sure Red Hat company help Xen? I guess you wrong. Red Hat employee > not mean Red Hat company and they can help > other Open Source projects as hobbyist. I guess some Citrix

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 02/11] acpi: Define ACPI IO registers for PVH guests

>>> On 15.11.16 at 16:41, wrote: > On 11/15/2016 10:13 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 15.11.16 at 15:47, wrote: >>> On 11/15/2016 03:47 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: > --- a/tools/libacpi/static_tables.c > +++

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2] x86/EFI: meet further spec requirements for runtime calls

On 14/11/16 10:32, Jan Beulich wrote: > So far we didn't guarantee 16-byte alignment of the stack: While (so > far) we don't tell the compiler to use smaller alignment, we also don't > guarantee 16-byte alignment when establishing stack pointers for new > vCPU-s. Runtime service functions using

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v7 06/11] x86, paravirt: Add interface to support kvm/xen vcpu preempted check

On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 05:08:33AM -0400, Pan Xinhui wrote: > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt_types.h > b/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt_types.h > index 0f400c0..38c3bb7 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt_types.h > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt_types.h > @@ -310,6 +310,8

Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC PATCH KERNEL 1/4] x86/xen: start untangling PV and PVHVM guest support code

On 11/14/2016 12:17 PM, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote: > > +config XEN_PV > + bool "Xen PV guest support" > + default y > + depends on XEN > + help > + Support running as a Xen PV guest. > + > config XEN_DOM0 We might consider renaming this to XEN_PV_DOM0 to distinguish it from

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 08/11] pvh/acpi: Handle ACPI accesses for PVH guests

On 11/15/2016 10:17 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >> The other option was XEN_X86_EMU_ACPI. Would it be better? > As that's a little too wide (and I think someone else had also > disliked it for that reason), how about XEN_X86_EMU_ACPI_FF > (for "fixed features"), or if that's still too wide, break

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 02/11] acpi: Define ACPI IO registers for PVH guests

On 11/15/2016 10:13 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: On 15.11.16 at 15:47, wrote: >> On 11/15/2016 03:47 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: --- a/tools/libacpi/static_tables.c +++ b/tools/libacpi/static_tables.c @@ -20,6 +20,8 @@ * Firmware ACPI Control Structure

Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC PATCH] xen/x86: Increase xen_e820_map to E820_X_MAX possible entries

On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 10:55:49AM +0100, Juergen Gross wrote: > I'd go with the new error code. What about E2BIG or ENOSPC? > > I think the hypervisor should fill in the number of entries required > in this case. > > In case nobody objects I can post patches for this purpose (both Xen > and

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 02/11] acpi: Define ACPI IO registers for PVH guests

>>> On 15.11.16 at 15:47, wrote: > On 11/15/2016 03:47 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >> >>> --- a/tools/libacpi/static_tables.c >>> +++ b/tools/libacpi/static_tables.c >>> @@ -20,6 +20,8 @@ >>> * Firmware ACPI Control Structure (FACS). >>> */ >>> >>> +#define

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 1/2] tools/libacpi: Re-licence remaining GPL code to LGPLv2.1

On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 11:52:26PM -0500, Boris Ostrovsky wrote: > We now have permission from Lenovo to relicense commit 801d469ad8b2 > ("[HVM] ACPI support patch 3 of 4: ACPI _PRT table") to LGPLv2.1 > > This essentially means reverting commits c3397311a658 ("acpi: Prevent > GPL-only code from

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 10/11] pvh: Send an SCI on VCPU hotplug event

>>> On 15.11.16 at 15:57, wrote: > On 11/15/2016 04:36 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 09.11.16 at 15:39, wrote: >>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/domctl.c >>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/domctl.c >>> @@ -1443,6 +1443,18 @@ long arch_do_domctl( >>>

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 08/11] pvh/acpi: Handle ACPI accesses for PVH guests

>>> On 15.11.16 at 15:55, wrote: > On 11/15/2016 04:24 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 09.11.16 at 15:39, wrote: >>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/ioreq.c >>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/ioreq.c >>> @@ -1383,6 +1383,78 @@ static int

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 01/11] x86/domctl: Add XEN_DOMCTL_set_avail_vcpus

On 11/15/2016 09:33 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: On 15.11.16 at 15:28, wrote: >> On 11/15/2016 03:34 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 09.11.16 at 15:39, wrote: This domctl is called when a VCPU is hot-(un)plugged to a guest (via

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 10/11] pvh: Send an SCI on VCPU hotplug event

On 11/15/2016 04:36 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: On 09.11.16 at 15:39, wrote: >> --- a/xen/arch/x86/domctl.c >> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/domctl.c >> @@ -1443,6 +1443,18 @@ long arch_do_domctl( >> break; >> >> d->arch.avail_vcpus = num; >> + >> +

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 08/11] pvh/acpi: Handle ACPI accesses for PVH guests

On 11/15/2016 04:24 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: On 09.11.16 at 15:39, wrote: >> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/ioreq.c >> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/ioreq.c >> @@ -1383,6 +1383,78 @@ static int hvm_access_cf8(static int acpi_ioaccess( >> int dir, unsigned int port, unsigned

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 02/11] acpi: Define ACPI IO registers for PVH guests

On 11/15/2016 03:47 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: > >> --- a/tools/libacpi/static_tables.c >> +++ b/tools/libacpi/static_tables.c >> @@ -20,6 +20,8 @@ >> * Firmware ACPI Control Structure (FACS). >> */ >> >> +#define ACPI_REG_BIT_OFFSET0 > Can you completely exclude us ever wanting to support

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH Altp2m cleanup 2/3 v12 2/3] Altp2m cleanup: cleaning up partial memory allocations in hap_enable().

>>> On 11.11.16 at 00:45, wrote: > @@ -488,43 +489,44 @@ int hap_enable(struct domain *d, u32 mode) > /* allocate P2m table */ > if ( mode & PG_translate ) > { > +/* p2m_alloc_table() #1 */ > rv = p2m_alloc_table(p2m_get_hostp2m(d)); >

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 01/11] x86/domctl: Add XEN_DOMCTL_set_avail_vcpus

>>> On 15.11.16 at 15:28, wrote: > On 11/15/2016 03:34 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 09.11.16 at 15:39, wrote: >>> This domctl is called when a VCPU is hot-(un)plugged to a guest (via >>> 'xl vcpu-set'). While this currently is only

[Xen-devel] [ovmf test] 102260: all pass - PUSHED

flight 102260 ovmf real [real] http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/102260/ Perfect :-) All tests in this flight passed as required version targeted for testing: ovmf c0cb1e1a72bccb5c83d7a36a8e52a38002b18671 baseline version: ovmf

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 01/11] x86/domctl: Add XEN_DOMCTL_set_avail_vcpus

On 11/15/2016 03:34 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: On 09.11.16 at 15:39, wrote: >> This domctl is called when a VCPU is hot-(un)plugged to a guest (via >> 'xl vcpu-set'). While this currently is only intended to be needed by >> PVH guests we will call this domctl for all

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 2/2] libacpi: Be specific about which DSDT files to build

On 15/11/2016 13:45, "Andrew Cooper" wrote: >On 15/11/16 13:35, Boris Ostrovsky wrote: >> On 11/15/2016 01:17 AM, Wei Liu wrote: >>> On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 11:52:27PM -0500, Boris Ostrovsky wrote: There is no reason to build, for example, dsdt_pvh.asl for

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH Altp2m cleanup 2/3 v12 1/3] Move altp2m specific functions to altp2m files.

>>> On 11.11.16 at 00:45, wrote: > @@ -66,6 +67,60 @@ altp2m_vcpu_destroy(struct vcpu *v) > } > > /* > + * allocate and initialize memory for altp2m portion of domain > + * > + * returns < 0 on error > + * returns 0 on no operation & success > + */ > +int >

Re: [Xen-devel] Xen like VirtualBox

On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 11:54 AM, John Haxby wrote: > On 15/11/16 11:17, Jason Long wrote: >> You said a Red Hat employee and this company like KVM not Xen. > > That makes no sense. You're denying what it says on the > virt-manager.org web site as well as denying what it

Re: [Xen-devel] Xen like VirtualBox

Thank you but I guess it is serious for Xen. Are you Sure Red Hat company help Xen? I guess you wrong. Red Hat employee not mean Red Hat company and they can help other Open Source projects as hobbyist. I guess some Citrix guys help KVM as hobbyist too. When you read Virtualization books then

[Xen-devel] [distros-debian-snapshot test] 68041: tolerable FAIL

flight 68041 distros-debian-snapshot real [real] http://osstest.xs.citrite.net/~osstest/testlogs/logs/68041/ Failures :-/ but no regressions. Regressions which are regarded as allowable (not blocking): test-armhf-armhf-armhf-daily-netboot-pygrub 9 debian-di-install fail like 68013

Re: [Xen-devel] [GIT PULL v2 1/5] processor.h: introduce cpu_relax_yield

On 11/15/2016 02:37 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 02:19:53PM +0100, Christian Borntraeger wrote: >> On 11/15/2016 01:30 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: >>> On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 11:03:11AM +0200, Christian Borntraeger wrote: For spinning loops people do

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 2/2] libacpi: Be specific about which DSDT files to build

On 15/11/16 13:35, Boris Ostrovsky wrote: > On 11/15/2016 01:17 AM, Wei Liu wrote: >> On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 11:52:27PM -0500, Boris Ostrovsky wrote: >>> There is no reason to build, for example, dsdt_pvh.asl for hvmloader. We >>> pass which DSDTs to build via DSDT_FILES parameter. >>> >>> If

Re: [Xen-devel] [GIT PULL v2 1/5] processor.h: introduce cpu_relax_yield

On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 02:19:53PM +0100, Christian Borntraeger wrote: > On 11/15/2016 01:30 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 11:03:11AM +0200, Christian Borntraeger wrote: > >> For spinning loops people do often use barrier() or cpu_relax(). > >> For most

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 2/2] libacpi: Be specific about which DSDT files to build

On 11/15/2016 01:17 AM, Wei Liu wrote: > On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 11:52:27PM -0500, Boris Ostrovsky wrote: >> There is no reason to build, for example, dsdt_pvh.asl for hvmloader. We >> pass which DSDTs to build via DSDT_FILES parameter. >> >> If DSDT_FILES is empty all DSDTs for a particular

Re: [Xen-devel] [GIT PULL v2 1/5] processor.h: introduce cpu_relax_yield

On 11/15/2016 01:30 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 11:03:11AM +0200, Christian Borntraeger wrote: >> For spinning loops people do often use barrier() or cpu_relax(). >> For most architectures cpu_relax and barrier are the same, but on >> some architectures cpu_relax

Re: [Xen-devel] [GIT PULL v2 1/5] processor.h: introduce cpu_relax_yield

On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 11:03:11AM +0200, Christian Borntraeger wrote: > For spinning loops people do often use barrier() or cpu_relax(). > For most architectures cpu_relax and barrier are the same, but on > some architectures cpu_relax can add some latency. > For example on power,sparc64 and arc,

Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC PATCH KERNEL 1/4] x86/xen: start untangling PV and PVHVM guest support code

David Vrabel writes: > On 14/11/16 17:17, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote: >> Introduce CONFIG_XEN_PV config option and split enlighten.c into >> 3 files. Temporary add #ifdef CONFIG_XEN_PV to smp.c and mmu.c to >> not break the build and not make the patch even bigger. >> >>

Re: [Xen-devel] Xen like VirtualBox

On 15/11/16 11:17, Jason Long wrote: > You said a Red Hat employee and this company like KVM not Xen. That makes no sense. You're denying what it says on the virt-manager.org web site as well as denying what it says in the description of the RPM. Even the Red Hat RPM for virt-manager says that

[Xen-devel] [qemu-mainline test] 102248: regressions - FAIL

flight 102248 qemu-mainline real [real] http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/102248/ Regressions :-( Tests which did not succeed and are blocking, including tests which could not be run: test-amd64-amd64-xl-qcow2 9 debian-di-installfail REGR. vs. 101909

Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC PATCH 02/24] ARM: GICv3: allocate LPI pending and property table

Hi Julien, On 01/11/16 17:22, Julien Grall wrote: > Hi Andre, > > On 28/09/2016 19:24, Andre Przywara wrote: >> The ARM GICv3 ITS provides a new kind of interrupt called LPIs. >> The pending bits and the configuration data (priority, enable bits) for >> those LPIs are stored in tables in normal

Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC PATCH KERNEL 1/4] x86/xen: start untangling PV and PVHVM guest support code

On 14/11/16 17:17, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote: > Introduce CONFIG_XEN_PV config option and split enlighten.c into > 3 files. Temporary add #ifdef CONFIG_XEN_PV to smp.c and mmu.c to > not break the build and not make the patch even bigger. > > xen_cpu_up_prepare*/xen_cpu_die hooks require separation

Re: [Xen-devel] Xen like VirtualBox

You said a Red Hat employee and this company like KVM not Xen. On Tuesday, November 15, 2016 2:16 PM, John Haxby wrote: On 14/11/16 14:05, Jason Long wrote: > Thank you but the problem is that "virt-manager" is for Redhat and Redhat > don't like Xen anymore because of

Re: [Xen-devel] Xen like VirtualBox

I'm working with XenServer too and XenServer is not a complete Linux and you can't work it well like Linux. You can Install Xen on your Linux and doing Virtualization and your daily work with Linux. On Tuesday, November 15, 2016 1:30 PM, Paul Durrant wrote: >

Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC PATCH KERNEL 0/4] x86/xen: untangle PV and PVHVM guest support code

Boris Ostrovsky writes: > On 11/14/2016 01:21 PM, David Vrabel wrote: >> On 14/11/16 17:17, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I have a long-standing idea to separate PV and PVHVM code in kernel and >>> introduce Kconfig options to make it possible to enable the

Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC PATCH] xen/x86: Increase xen_e820_map to E820_X_MAX possible entries

>>> On 15.11.16 at 12:07, wrote: > On 15/11/16 11:44, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 15.11.16 at 10:55, wrote: >>> On 15/11/16 10:45, Jan Beulich wrote: >>> On 15.11.16 at 09:42, wrote: > For a fully dynamical solution we'd need a way to

Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC PATCH] xen/x86: Increase xen_e820_map to E820_X_MAX possible entries

On 15/11/16 11:44, Jan Beulich wrote: On 15.11.16 at 10:55, wrote: >> On 15/11/16 10:45, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 15.11.16 at 09:42, wrote: For a fully dynamical solution we'd need a way to get a partial E820 map from the hypervisor (e.g.

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v1 1/2] xen/kexec: Find out whether an kexec type is loaded.

On 14/11/16 22:12, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > The tools that use kexec are asynchronous in nature and do > not keep state changes. As such provide an hypercall to find > out whether an image has been loaded for either type. > > Note: No need to modify XSM as it has one size fits all > check

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86: re-add stack alignment check

>>> On 15.11.16 at 11:26, wrote: > On 14/11/16 16:54, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 14.11.16 at 17:38, wrote: >>> On 14/11/16 15:02, Jan Beulich wrote: >>> On 14.11.16 at 15:38, wrote: > On 14/11/16 14:24,

Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC PATCH] xen/x86: Increase xen_e820_map to E820_X_MAX possible entries

>>> On 15.11.16 at 10:55, wrote: > On 15/11/16 10:45, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 15.11.16 at 09:42, wrote: >>> For a fully dynamical solution we'd need a way to get a partial >>> E820 map from the hypervisor (e.g. first 128 entries) in order to >>> be able to

Re: [Xen-devel] Xen like VirtualBox

On 14/11/16 14:05, Jason Long wrote: > Thank you but the problem is that "virt-manager" is for Redhat and Redhat > don't like Xen anymore because of KVM. Another problem is that a program like > VirtualBox has a nice GUI but virt-manager not. virt-manager is also available for Fedora and Fedora

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86: re-add stack alignment check

On 14/11/16 16:54, Jan Beulich wrote: On 14.11.16 at 17:38, wrote: >> On 14/11/16 15:02, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 14.11.16 at 15:38, wrote: On 14/11/16 14:24, Jan Beulich wrote: On 14.11.16 at 14:45,

[Xen-devel] [PATCH 32/35] libxl/libxl_vnuma.c: used LOG*D functions

From: Cédric Bosdonnat Use LOG*D logging functions where possible instead of the LOG* ones. Signed-off-by: Cédric Bosdonnat --- tools/libxl/libxl_vnuma.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git

[Xen-devel] [PATCH 28/35] libxl/libxl_qmp.c: used LOG*D functions

From: Cédric Bosdonnat Use LOG*D logging functions where possible instead of the LOG* ones. Signed-off-by: Cédric Bosdonnat --- tools/libxl/libxl_qmp.c | 56 - 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 28

  1   2   >