On Tue, 2007-01-09 at 15:19 -0600, Jerone Young wrote:
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
First patch to attempt to re introduce older code written by Hollis.
If a structure that does not fit within 1 page is pointed to, we need
to create a structure on the stack to represent this structure for the
hypervisor. This code affects kernel module addresses which are do not
have
On Wed, 2007-01-10 at 11:51 -0600, Jerone Young wrote:
diff -r bbf2db4ddf54 arch/powerpc/platforms/xen/gnttab.c
--- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/xen/gnttab.c Tue Dec 19 09:22:37 2006 -0500
+++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/xen/gnttab.c Wed Jan 10 00:50:24 2007 -0600
@@ -264,7 +264,7 @@
On Jan 10, 2007, at 12:43 PM, Hollis Blanchard wrote:
On Tue, 2007-01-09 at 12:24 -0500, Jimi Xenidis wrote:
We have currently have three page allocators. The first is PPC-
specific,
and it includes the Xen image, RTAS, and our copy of the Open
Firmware
device tree.
More precisely, it
On Wed, 2007-01-10 at 12:45 -0600, Hollis Blanchard wrote:
On Wed, 2007-01-10 at 11:51 -0600, Jerone Young wrote:
diff -r bbf2db4ddf54 arch/powerpc/platforms/xen/gnttab.c
--- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/xen/gnttab.c Tue Dec 19 09:22:37 2006
-0500
+++
On Wed, 2007-01-10 at 13:55 -0500, Jimi Xenidis wrote:
SLOF:
- does implement, but does not update available, though recent
resions might
Current SLOF does.
- claim will only tell you about conflicts its self
- will not tell you about conflicts with other claims or loaded
images
On Jan 10, 2007, at 4:29 PM, Hollis Blanchard wrote:
On Wed, 2007-01-10 at 13:55 -0500, Jimi Xenidis wrote:
SLOF:
- does implement, but does not update available, though recent
resions might
Current SLOF does.
- claim will only tell you about conflicts its self
- will not tell you
Repeated identical claims cause an unknown exception at the Forth
prompt, but don't succeed. I'm not sure if that becomes an error via
the
client interface.
It does, the throw method would return an OF failure, this is
expected.
The OF side of the specific client interface call has to
