Hi, Isaku All
The attached patch should fix the weird issue. In upstream, we also find
some other weird issues, for example, we can't boot dom0 on some platforms, and
dom0 may have different behavior with different initrds. After debug, I found
it should be caused by incorrect setting
Hi. Good catch. Some comments.
I attached two patches to fix, could you try them?
- bss.page_aligned.
Where is the section used?
grep didn't tell me. Surely x86 uses .bss.page_aligned in
linux/arch/[i386, x86_64]/kernel/head[-xen].S,
but no files unuder linux/arch/ia64/ don't use it.
-
Isaku Yamahata wrote:
Hi. Good catch. Some comments.
I attached two patches to fix, could you try them?
- bss.page_aligned.
Where is the section used?
grep didn't tell me. Surely x86 uses .bss.page_aligned in
linux/arch/[i386, x86_64]/kernel/head[-xen].S,
but no files unuder
On Mon, Jan 05, 2009 at 12:29:55PM +0800, Zhang, Xiantao wrote:
Isaku Yamahata wrote:
Hi. Good catch. Some comments.
I attached two patches to fix, could you try them?
- bss.page_aligned.
Where is the section used?
grep didn't tell me. Surely x86 uses .bss.page_aligned in
Isaku Yamahata wrote:
On Mon, Jan 05, 2009 at 12:29:55PM +0800, Zhang, Xiantao wrote:
Isaku Yamahata wrote:
Hi. Good catch. Some comments.
I attached two patches to fix, could you try them?
- bss.page_aligned.
Where is the section used?
grep didn't tell me. Surely x86 uses
On Mon, Jan 05, 2009 at 01:06:23PM +0800, Zhang, Xiantao wrote:
Oh, I haven't notice the check-in due to my old codebase. It introduces many
odd issues to us. Okay, it is also good to remove it. :)
For adopting fast eoi path, it should be okay to me. Please check-in them.
Applied,
I tried 2048M (and other value), but I wasn't reproduce it.
Hmm, does it reproduce with dom0_mem=2048M on all boxes which you
tested?
Isaku/All,
This issue is really very hard to locate. Now I am a little suspecting it is
related with building process, as if changing building method, this
On Monday, December 08, 2008 2:10 PM, Isaku Yamahata wrote:
On Mon, Dec 08, 2008 at 01:52:38PM +0800, Zhang, Jingke wrote:
Isaku Yamahata wrote:
On Mon, Dec 08, 2008 at 11:31:15AM +0800, Zhang, Jingke wrote:
Hi Isaku,
We re-get the detail information from serial port, please see
below.
Hi Isaku,
We re-get the detail information from serial port, please see below. Two
comments add:
1. We can be sure the Cset#18832 works well on the same tiger4 machine. But
we did not do regression test between 18832 and this 18860.
2. It is strange that on another Tiger4 box, dom0
On Mon, Dec 08, 2008 at 11:31:15AM +0800, Zhang, Jingke wrote:
Hi Isaku,
We re-get the detail information from serial port, please see below. Two
comments add:
Thank you.
1. We can be sure the Cset#18832 works well on the same tiger4 machine.
But we did not do regression test
Isaku Yamahata wrote:
On Mon, Dec 08, 2008 at 11:31:15AM +0800, Zhang, Jingke wrote:
Hi Isaku,
We re-get the detail information from serial port, please see
below. Two comments add:
Thank you.
1. We can be sure the Cset#18832 works well on the same tiger4
machine. But we did
On Mon, Dec 08, 2008 at 01:52:38PM +0800, Zhang, Jingke wrote:
Isaku Yamahata wrote:
On Mon, Dec 08, 2008 at 11:31:15AM +0800, Zhang, Jingke wrote:
Hi Isaku,
We re-get the detail information from serial port, please see
below. Two comments add:
Thank you.
1. We can
Hi,
On [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Isaku Yamahata wrote:
On Mon, Dec 08, 2008 at 11:31:15AM +0800, Zhang, Jingke wrote:
1. We can be sure the Cset#18832 works well on the same
tiger4 machine. But we did not do regression test between 18832 and
this 18860.
2. It is strange that on another
Only call stack?
Panic messages and/or register dump aren't available?
On Fri, Dec 05, 2008 at 11:45:46AM +0800, Zhang, Jingke wrote:
Hi all,
We found the latest Cset#18860 will make dom0 crash. Last stable Cset we
have tested is 18832. Thanks!
Build info:
14 matches
Mail list logo
