On 2011-06-19 17:41, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Merged your whole branch, but took the liberty to change it a bit
(replacing the commit concerning unlocked context switches with comments
changes only, and changing the commit about xntbase_tick).
What makes splmax() redundant for the unlocked
On 2011-06-19 15:00, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 06/19/2011 01:17 PM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 06/19/2011 12:14 PM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
I am working on this ppd cleanup issue again, I am asking for help to
find a fix in -head for all cases where the sys_ppd is needed during
On 06/20/2011 06:43 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-06-19 17:41, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Merged your whole branch, but took the liberty to change it a bit
(replacing the commit concerning unlocked context switches with comments
changes only, and changing the commit about xntbase_tick).
On 06/20/2011 07:07 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
static inline void do_cleanup_event(struct mm_struct *mm)
{
+struct task_struct *p = current;
+struct mm_struct *old;
+
+old = xnshadow_mm(p);
+xnshadow_mmptd(p) = mm;
+
ppd_remove_mm(mm, detach_ppd);
+
+
On 2011-06-20 19:33, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 06/20/2011 06:43 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-06-19 17:41, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Merged your whole branch, but took the liberty to change it a bit
(replacing the commit concerning unlocked context switches with comments
changes only,
On 06/20/2011 09:38 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-06-20 19:33, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 06/20/2011 06:43 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-06-19 17:41, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Merged your whole branch, but took the liberty to change it a bit
(replacing the commit concerning unlocked
On 2011-06-20 21:41, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 06/20/2011 09:38 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-06-20 19:33, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 06/20/2011 06:43 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-06-19 17:41, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Merged your whole branch, but took the liberty to change it a
On 06/20/2011 09:41 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-06-20 21:41, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 06/20/2011 09:38 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-06-20 19:33, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 06/20/2011 06:43 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-06-19 17:41, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Merged your whole
On 2011-06-20 21:51, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 06/20/2011 09:41 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-06-20 21:41, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 06/20/2011 09:38 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-06-20 19:33, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 06/20/2011 06:43 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-06-19
On 06/20/2011 10:41 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
xnarch_switch_to is the central entry point for everyone. It may decide
to branch to switch_to or __switch_to, or it simply handles all on its
own - that's depending on the arch.
No, the Linux kernel does not know anything about xnarch_switch_to, so
On 2011-06-20 19:46, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 06/20/2011 07:07 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
static inline void do_cleanup_event(struct mm_struct *mm)
{
+ struct task_struct *p = current;
+ struct mm_struct *old;
+
+ old = xnshadow_mm(p);
+ xnshadow_mmptd(p) = mm;
+
On 2011-06-20 22:52, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 06/20/2011 10:41 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
xnarch_switch_to is the central entry point for everyone. It may decide
to branch to switch_to or __switch_to, or it simply handles all on its
own - that's depending on the arch.
No, the Linux kernel
12 matches
Mail list logo
