On Mon, Jan 01, 2007 at 04:44:30PM +, Keir Fraser wrote:
On 1/1/07 12:21 am, "Rik van Riel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
XenSource has usually been less than useful when it comes
to tracking the upstream kernel. I suspect they'll be
obsoleted by KVM and/or lhype at some point in the future
Sorry I sent the wrong patch file. Correct one is attached.
On Tue, 2007-01-09 at 15:12 -0600, Jerone Young wrote:
> This patch removes an invalid optimization that works great if you are a
> kernel address (which is contiguous), but if you are module then you
> have a kernel address but you are n
This patch removes an invalid optimization that works great if you are a
kernel address (which is contiguous), but if you are module then you
have a kernel address but you are not contiguous. So this check is
invalid.
diff -r bbf2db4ddf54 arch/powerpc/platforms/xen/xencomm.c
--- a/arch/powerpc/plat
Keir, can you commit this patch to the tree. It has been tested and does
not appear to cause any issues.
Signed-off-by: Jerone Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Fri, 2007-01-05 at 12:19 +0900, Isaku Yamahata wrote:
> fix xencomm_copy_{from, to}_guest.
> It should not call paddr_to_maddr() with invali
On Jan 9, 2007, at 12:34 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
Wait a minute, doesn't systemsim has a passthrough call for
memmove? If
we should wire that up then this won't impact performance at all.
We were/are trying to eliminate all simulator specific passthrus
in the Xen core code.
That so
Wait a minute, doesn't systemsim has a passthrough call for memmove?
If
we should wire that up then this won't impact performance at all.
We were/are trying to eliminate all simulator specific passthrus in
the Xen core code.
That sounds rather counterproductive. What's wrong with
having som
On Jan 9, 2007, at 12:09 PM, Hollis Blanchard wrote:
On Thu, 2007-01-04 at 15:56 -0500, Jimi Xenidis wrote:
We did a lot of work here so that stuff could be placed anywhere. I
admit it was not pretty but I'd expect this patch to
replace/improve
not remove.
The memmove below means this lo
On Jan 9, 2007, at 11:24 AM, Hollis Blanchard wrote:
On Mon, 2007-01-08 at 18:38 -0500, Jimi Xenidis wrote:
Removing our custom allocator is important to simplify the
upcoming
multiboot2 conversion.
how?
We have currently have three page allocators. The first is PPC-
specific,
and
On Thu, 2007-01-04 at 15:56 -0500, Jimi Xenidis wrote:
>
> >> We did a lot of work here so that stuff could be placed anywhere. I
> >> admit it was not pretty but I'd expect this patch to
> replace/improve
> >> not remove.
> >
> > The memmove below means this logic is unnecessary.
>
> I'd prefer
On Mon, 2007-01-08 at 18:38 -0500, Jimi Xenidis wrote:
> > Removing our custom allocator is important to simplify the upcoming
> > multiboot2 conversion.
>
> how?
We have currently have three page allocators. The first is PPC-specific,
and it includes the Xen image, RTAS, and our copy of the
10 matches
Mail list logo
