On 26.11.19 10:08, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 09:30:47AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 25.11.2019 18:49, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 05:34:15PM +, Andrew Cooper wrote:
On 25/11/2019 17:27, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 05:07:04PM
On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 09:30:47AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 25.11.2019 18:49, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 05:34:15PM +, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> >> On 25/11/2019 17:27, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 05:07:04PM +, Wei Liu wrote:
> On
On 25.11.2019 18:49, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 05:34:15PM +, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> On 25/11/2019 17:27, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
>>> On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 05:07:04PM +, Wei Liu wrote:
On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 04:59:31PM +0100, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
[...]
On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 05:34:15PM +, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 25/11/2019 17:27, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 05:07:04PM +, Wei Liu wrote:
> >> On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 04:59:31PM +0100, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> >> [...]
> >>> Which I think it's expected, we already
On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 05:34:15PM +, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 25/11/2019 17:27, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 05:07:04PM +, Wei Liu wrote:
> >> On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 04:59:31PM +0100, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> >> [...]
> >>> Which I think it's expected, we already
On 25/11/2019 17:27, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 05:07:04PM +, Wei Liu wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 04:59:31PM +0100, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
>> [...]
>>> Which I think it's expected, we already knew clang had a lot of
>>> duplicate symbols. The only way I know to
On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 05:07:04PM +, Wei Liu wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 04:59:31PM +0100, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> [...]
> >
> > Which I think it's expected, we already knew clang had a lot of
> > duplicate symbols. The only way I know to workaround this ATM is to
> > use `gmake xen
On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 04:59:31PM +0100, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
[...]
>
> Which I think it's expected, we already knew clang had a lot of
> duplicate symbols. The only way I know to workaround this ATM is to
> use `gmake xen clang=y CONFIG_ENFORCE_UNIQUE_SYMBOLS=n`. It's on my
> pile of stuff to
On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 02:06:06PM +, Wei Liu wrote:
> Cc Roger -- you're our resident Clang expert. :-)
>
> On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 08:02:17AM -0600, Doug Goldstein wrote:
> > On 11/21/19 12:05 AM, Jürgen Groß wrote:
> >
> > > Where do we stand with Xen 4.13 regarding blockers and related
On 25.11.2019 15:02, Doug Goldstein wrote:
> 2. The hypervisor currently fails to build with clang using versions
> that READM says are supported no matter the configuration.
Did you post any details of this anywhere?
Jan
___
Xen-devel mailing list
Cc Roger -- you're our resident Clang expert. :-)
On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 08:02:17AM -0600, Doug Goldstein wrote:
> On 11/21/19 12:05 AM, Jürgen Groß wrote:
>
> > Where do we stand with Xen 4.13 regarding blockers and related patches?
> >
> 1. Currently the default "make install" fails with
On 11/21/19 12:05 AM, Jürgen Groß wrote:
Where do we stand with Xen 4.13 regarding blockers and related patches?
1. Currently the default "make install" fails with errors in
tools/tests/x86_emulator if you don't have a new enough GCC. Causing
failures on distros that are considered still
On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 9:38 AM Andrew Cooper wrote:
>
> On 21/11/2019 17:31, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 10:06 PM Jürgen Groß wrote:
> >> Where do we stand with Xen 4.13 regarding blockers and related patches?
> >>
> >> 1. OSStest failure regarding nested test:
> >>
On Nov 21, 2019, at 17:11, Marek Marczykowski-Górecki
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 11:39:14AM -0800, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
>>> On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 9:38 AM Andrew Cooper
>>> wrote:
>>> On 21/11/2019 17:31, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 10:06 PM Jürgen
On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 11:39:14AM -0800, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 9:38 AM Andrew Cooper
> wrote:
> >
> > On 21/11/2019 17:31, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 10:06 PM Jürgen Groß wrote:
> > >> Where do we stand with Xen 4.13 regarding blockers and
On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 9:38 AM Andrew Cooper wrote:
>
> On 21/11/2019 17:31, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 10:06 PM Jürgen Groß wrote:
> >> Where do we stand with Xen 4.13 regarding blockers and related patches?
> >>
> >> 1. OSStest failure regarding nested test:
> >>
On 21/11/2019 17:31, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 10:06 PM Jürgen Groß wrote:
>> Where do we stand with Xen 4.13 regarding blockers and related patches?
>>
>> 1. OSStest failure regarding nested test:
>> I'm not quite sure whether the currently debated patch of Andrew is
On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 10:06 PM Jürgen Groß wrote:
>
> Where do we stand with Xen 4.13 regarding blockers and related patches?
>
> 1. OSStest failure regarding nested test:
> I'm not quite sure whether the currently debated patch of Andrew is
> fixing the problem. If not, do we know what
On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 4:16 PM Ian Jackson wrote:
>
> Wei Liu writes ("Re: Status of 4.13"):
> > FWIW I've pushed all the toolstack patches that I'm aware of.
>
> The only thing outstanding that I am aware of is
> [PATCH for-4.13 v1 1/2] libxl: introduce new backend type VINPUT
> of which I am
On 21.11.2019 17:03, George Dunlap wrote:
>
>
>> On Nov 21, 2019, at 3:34 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>
>> On 21.11.2019 16:20, George Dunlap wrote:
>>>
>>>
On Nov 21, 2019, at 8:41 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 21.11.2019 08:36, Jürgen Groß wrote:
> On 21.11.19 08:30, Steven Haigh
On 21.11.2019 17:20, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> "xen/vcpu: Sanitise VCPUOP_initialise call hierachy". This is XSA-296
> followup and RFC for-4.13 with no comments for/against. This has also
> stalled with no acks, no concrete suggestion for changes or ways forward.
On the 4th I replied
"I can see
On 21/11/2019 06:05, Jürgen Groß wrote:
> Where do we stand with Xen 4.13 regarding blockers and related patches?
>
> 1. OSStest failure regarding nested test:
> I'm not quite sure whether the currently debated patch of Andrew is
> fixing the problem. If not, do we know what is missing or
> On Nov 21, 2019, at 3:34 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>
> On 21.11.2019 16:20, George Dunlap wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Nov 21, 2019, at 8:41 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>
>>> On 21.11.2019 08:36, Jürgen Groß wrote:
On 21.11.19 08:30, Steven Haigh wrote:
> On 2019-11-21 17:05, Jürgen Groß
On 21.11.2019 16:20, George Dunlap wrote:
>
>
>> On Nov 21, 2019, at 8:41 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>
>> On 21.11.2019 08:36, Jürgen Groß wrote:
>>> On 21.11.19 08:30, Steven Haigh wrote:
On 2019-11-21 17:05, Jürgen Groß wrote:
> Where do we stand with Xen 4.13 regarding blockers and
> On Nov 21, 2019, at 8:41 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>
> On 21.11.2019 08:36, Jürgen Groß wrote:
>> On 21.11.19 08:30, Steven Haigh wrote:
>>> On 2019-11-21 17:05, Jürgen Groß wrote:
Where do we stand with Xen 4.13 regarding blockers and related patches?
2. Ryzen/Rome failures
Wei Liu writes ("Re: Status of 4.13"):
> FWIW I've pushed all the toolstack patches that I'm aware of.
The only thing outstanding that I am aware of is
[PATCH for-4.13 v1 1/2] libxl: introduce new backend type VINPUT
of which I am awaiting a respin from Oleksandr Grytsov (in the To).
There is a
On Thu, 21 Nov 2019 at 06:05, Jürgen Groß wrote:
[...]
> 4. Are there any blockers for 4.13 other than 1. and 2. (apart of any
> pending XSAs)?
>
FWIW I've pushed all the toolstack patches that I'm aware of.
Wei.
>
> Juergen
___
Xen-devel
On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 09:53:44AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 21.11.2019 07:05, Jürgen Groß wrote:
> > Where do we stand with Xen 4.13 regarding blockers and related patches?
> >
> > 1. OSStest failure regarding nested test:
> > I'm not quite sure whether the currently debated patch of
On 21.11.2019 07:05, Jürgen Groß wrote:
> Where do we stand with Xen 4.13 regarding blockers and related patches?
>
> 1. OSStest failure regarding nested test:
> I'm not quite sure whether the currently debated patch of Andrew is
> fixing the problem. If not, do we know what is missing or
On 21.11.2019 08:36, Jürgen Groß wrote:
> On 21.11.19 08:30, Steven Haigh wrote:
>> On 2019-11-21 17:05, Jürgen Groß wrote:
>>> Where do we stand with Xen 4.13 regarding blockers and related patches?
>>>
>>> 2. Ryzen/Rome failures with Windows guests:
>>> What is the currently planned way to
On 21.11.19 08:30, Steven Haigh wrote:
On 2019-11-21 17:05, Jürgen Groß wrote:
Where do we stand with Xen 4.13 regarding blockers and related patches?
2. Ryzen/Rome failures with Windows guests:
What is the currently planned way to address the problem? Who is
working on that?
A
On 2019-11-21 17:05, Jürgen Groß wrote:
Where do we stand with Xen 4.13 regarding blockers and related patches?
2. Ryzen/Rome failures with Windows guests:
What is the currently planned way to address the problem? Who is
working on that?
A workaround was found by specifying cpuid values
Where do we stand with Xen 4.13 regarding blockers and related patches?
1. OSStest failure regarding nested test:
I'm not quite sure whether the currently debated patch of Andrew is
fixing the problem. If not, do we know what is missing or how to
address the issue? If yes, could we
33 matches
Mail list logo
