El 06/03/15 a les 19.08, Luis R. Rodriguez ha escrit:
> On Fri, Mar 06, 2015 at 01:02:03PM -0500, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>> The distro is Red Hat.
>
> Why would Red Hat enable Linux Xen backend drivers without dom0?
Driver domains? That's the only reason to have backends in a non-dom0
kerne
On Fri, Mar 06, 2015 at 01:02:03PM -0500, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 06, 2015 at 09:17:36AM -0800, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > Hey Konrad, just a friendly reminder, the backend question for GPL
> > kernels interests me specially in light of recent events.
>
> GPL kernels? Aren't a
On Fri, Mar 06, 2015 at 09:17:36AM -0800, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> Hey Konrad, just a friendly reminder, the backend question for GPL
> kernels interests me specially in light of recent events.
GPL kernels? Aren't all Linux kernels GPL?
>
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 12:39 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez w
Hey Konrad, just a friendly reminder, the backend question for GPL
kernels interests me specially in light of recent events.
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 12:39 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 10:27 AM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
> wrote:
>> There was another reason. Some distros remo
On 03/02/2015 06:07 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Mon, 2 Mar 2015, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
I would prefer to hide it on PAE and x86_64.
Okay, as long as it is still _possible_ somehow to configure it.
That begs the question, all this just for 32-bit non-PAE ?
There was another rea
On Mon, Mar 02, 2015 at 12:30:02PM -0500, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 02, 2015 at 05:07:00PM +, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > On Mon, 2 Mar 2015, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > > > > > >> I would prefer to hide it on PAE and x86_64.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Oka
On Mon, Mar 02, 2015 at 11:07:02AM -0500, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > > > >> I would prefer to hide it on PAE and x86_64.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Okay, as long as it is still _possible_ somehow to configure it.
> > > >
> > > > That begs the question, all this just for 32-bit non-PAE ?
>
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 10:27 AM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
wrote:
> There was another reason. Some distros remove the CONFIG_XEN_DOM0 altogether
> even thought they do enable the rest of the pieces (backends, frontends, etc).
Interesting, what distros do this? Also when one does not have dom0
what o
On Mon, Mar 02, 2015 at 05:07:00PM +, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Mar 2015, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > > > > >> I would prefer to hide it on PAE and x86_64.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Okay, as long as it is still _possible_ somehow to configure it.
> > > > >
> > > > >
On Mon, 2 Mar 2015, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > > > >> I would prefer to hide it on PAE and x86_64.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Okay, as long as it is still _possible_ somehow to configure it.
> > > >
> > > > That begs the question, all this just for 32-bit non-PAE ?
> > >
> > > There was
> > > >> I would prefer to hide it on PAE and x86_64.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Okay, as long as it is still _possible_ somehow to configure it.
> > >
> > > That begs the question, all this just for 32-bit non-PAE ?
> >
> > There was another reason. Some distros remove the CONFIG_XEN_DOM0 altogethe
On Fri, 27 Feb 2015, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 09:53:46AM -0800, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 6:30 AM, Juergen Gross wrote:
> > > On 02/27/2015 02:38 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On Fri, 27 Feb 2015, Juergen Gross wrote:
> > >>>
>
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 07:14:32AM +0100, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 02/26/2015 07:48 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 05:42:57PM +, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>>> On Thu, 26 Feb 2015, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 11:08:20AM +, Stefano Stabellin
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 09:53:46AM -0800, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 6:30 AM, Juergen Gross wrote:
> > On 02/27/2015 02:38 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, 27 Feb 2015, Juergen Gross wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 02/27/2015 01:24 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>
> > This is not meant to be a performance improvement. It is meant to enable
> > a standard distro kernel configured without PARAVIRT to be able to run
> > as a HVM guest using the pv-drivers.
>
> This is not a convincing explanation. Debian, Ubuntu and Fedora seems
> to be able to cope with it
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 6:30 AM, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 02/27/2015 02:38 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 27 Feb 2015, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>>
>>> On 02/27/2015 01:24 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2015, Juergen Gross wrote:
>
> On 02/27/2015 11:11 AM
On 02/27/2015 02:38 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2015, Juergen Gross wrote:
On 02/27/2015 01:24 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2015, Juergen Gross wrote:
On 02/27/2015 11:11 AM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2015, Juergen Gross wrote:
On 02/27/2015 10
On Fri, 27 Feb 2015, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 02/27/2015 01:24 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > On Fri, 27 Feb 2015, Juergen Gross wrote:
> > > On 02/27/2015 11:11 AM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 27 Feb 2015, Juergen Gross wrote:
> > > > > On 02/27/2015 10:41 AM, Stefano Stabellini
On Fri, 2015-02-27 at 12:24 +, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > Using PV frontends is completely orthogonal to other PV enhancements
> > like PARAVIRT_CLOCK, HVMOP_pagetable_dying or PV IPIs. So why do you
> > object enabling the PV frontends for those kernels?
>
> I am for it. I would like to a
On 02/27/2015 01:24 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2015, Juergen Gross wrote:
On 02/27/2015 11:11 AM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2015, Juergen Gross wrote:
On 02/27/2015 10:41 AM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2015, Juergen Gross wrote:
On 02/26/2015 06
On Fri, 27 Feb 2015, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 02/27/2015 11:11 AM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > On Fri, 27 Feb 2015, Juergen Gross wrote:
> > > On 02/27/2015 10:41 AM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 27 Feb 2015, Juergen Gross wrote:
> > > > > On 02/26/2015 06:42 PM, Stefano Stabellini
On 02/27/2015 11:11 AM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2015, Juergen Gross wrote:
On 02/27/2015 10:41 AM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2015, Juergen Gross wrote:
On 02/26/2015 06:42 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2015, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
On Thu, Feb
On Fri, 27 Feb 2015, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-02-27 at 10:11 +, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>
> (for some reason I initially thought this was in reply to my mail, so
> it's written in a way which assumes that, so sprinkle IMHO around the
> place and/or take it as a follow on to my prev
On Fri, 2015-02-27 at 10:11 +, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
(for some reason I initially thought this was in reply to my mail, so
it's written in a way which assumes that, so sprinkle IMHO around the
place and/or take it as a follow on to my previous mail in this thread,
I guess)
> This is not a
On Fri, 27 Feb 2015, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 02/27/2015 10:41 AM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > On Fri, 27 Feb 2015, Juergen Gross wrote:
> > > On 02/26/2015 06:42 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 26 Feb 2015, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 11:08:20AM +000
On Thu, 2015-02-26 at 19:48 +0100, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 05:42:57PM +, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > On Thu, 26 Feb 2015, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 11:08:20AM +, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 26 Feb 2015, David Vrabel wro
On 02/27/2015 10:41 AM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2015, Juergen Gross wrote:
On 02/26/2015 06:42 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2015, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 11:08:20AM +, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2015, David Vrabel wro
On Fri, 27 Feb 2015, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 02/26/2015 06:42 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > On Thu, 26 Feb 2015, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 11:08:20AM +, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 26 Feb 2015, David Vrabel wrote:
> > > > > On 26/02/15 04:59, Jue
On 02/26/2015 07:48 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 05:42:57PM +, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2015, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 11:08:20AM +, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2015, David Vrabel wrote:
On 26/02/15 04:59, Ju
On 02/26/2015 06:42 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2015, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 11:08:20AM +, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2015, David Vrabel wrote:
On 26/02/15 04:59, Juergen Gross wrote:
So we are again in the situation that pv-driver
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 05:42:57PM +, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Feb 2015, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 11:08:20AM +, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > > On Thu, 26 Feb 2015, David Vrabel wrote:
> > > > On 26/02/15 04:59, Juergen Gross wrote:
> > > > >
> > >
On Thu, 26 Feb 2015, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 11:08:20AM +, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > On Thu, 26 Feb 2015, David Vrabel wrote:
> > > On 26/02/15 04:59, Juergen Gross wrote:
> > > >
> > > > So we are again in the situation that pv-drivers always imply the pvops
> >
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 11:08:20AM +, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Feb 2015, David Vrabel wrote:
> > On 26/02/15 04:59, Juergen Gross wrote:
> > >
> > > So we are again in the situation that pv-drivers always imply the pvops
> > > kernel (PARAVIRT selected). I started the whole Kconf
On 26/02/15 04:59, Juergen Gross wrote:
>
> So we are again in the situation that pv-drivers always imply the pvops
> kernel (PARAVIRT selected). I started the whole Kconfig rework to
> eliminate this dependency.
Yes. Can you produce a series that just addresses this one issue.
In the absence o
On Thu, 26 Feb 2015, David Vrabel wrote:
> On 26/02/15 04:59, Juergen Gross wrote:
> >
> > So we are again in the situation that pv-drivers always imply the pvops
> > kernel (PARAVIRT selected). I started the whole Kconfig rework to
> > eliminate this dependency.
>
> Yes. Can you produce a serie
On 02/26/2015 02:53 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
OK here's the state of affairs after some further discussion on some v3 patch
RFC changes and issues I've found after trying to build front end drivers
without CONFIG_XEN.
Option Selects Depends
---
OK here's the state of affairs after some further discussion on some v3 patch
RFC changes and issues I've found after trying to build front end drivers
without CONFIG_XEN.
Option Selects Depends
--
37 matches
Mail list logo
