On 23.09.19 12:12, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 23.09.2019 11:56, Jürgen Groß wrote:
On 23.09.19 11:51, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 23.09.2019 11:42, Jürgen Groß wrote:
On 16.09.19 17:44, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 16.09.2019 16:50, Andrew Cooper wrote:
After a complicated investigation, it turns out that
On 23.09.2019 11:56, Jürgen Groß wrote:
> On 23.09.19 11:51, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 23.09.2019 11:42, Jürgen Groß wrote:
>>> On 16.09.19 17:44, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 16.09.2019 16:50, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> After a complicated investigation, it turns out that c/s 2529c850ea48
>
On 23.09.19 11:51, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 23.09.2019 11:42, Jürgen Groß wrote:
On 16.09.19 17:44, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 16.09.2019 16:50, Andrew Cooper wrote:
After a complicated investigation, it turns out that c/s 2529c850ea48
broke xc_vcpu_getinfo().
The bug looks as if it is in
On 23.09.2019 11:42, Jürgen Groß wrote:
> On 16.09.19 17:44, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 16.09.2019 16:50, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>> After a complicated investigation, it turns out that c/s 2529c850ea48
>>> broke xc_vcpu_getinfo().
>>>
>>> The bug looks as if it is in vcpu_runstate_get(), which
On 16.09.19 17:44, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 16.09.2019 16:50, Andrew Cooper wrote:
After a complicated investigation, it turns out that c/s 2529c850ea48
broke xc_vcpu_getinfo().
The bug looks as if it is in vcpu_runstate_get(), which doesn't account
for XEN_RUNSTATE_UPDATE and calculating a
On 16.09.2019 16:50, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> After a complicated investigation, it turns out that c/s 2529c850ea48
> broke xc_vcpu_getinfo().
>
> The bug looks as if it is in vcpu_runstate_get(), which doesn't account
> for XEN_RUNSTATE_UPDATE and calculating a wildly inappropriate delta.
>
Hello,
After a complicated investigation, it turns out that c/s 2529c850ea48
broke xc_vcpu_getinfo().
The bug looks as if it is in vcpu_runstate_get(), which doesn't account
for XEN_RUNSTATE_UPDATE and calculating a wildly inappropriate delta.
Ultimately, the result of XEN_DOMCTL_getvcpuinfo
