<[email protected]>,Jarkko Sakkinen <[email protected]>,Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[email protected]>,Joe Millenbach <[email protected]>,Joerg Roedel <[email protected]>,Johannes Weiner <[email protected]>,Josh Triplett <[email protected]>,Kyungmin Park <[email protected]>,Lee Schermerhorn <[email protected]>,Len Brown <[email protected]>,Linux Kernel Mailing List <[email protected]>,Marcelo Tosatti <[email protected]>,Marek Szyprowski <[email protected]>,Matt Fleming <[email protected]>,Mel Gorman <[email protected]>,Paul Turner <[email protected]>,Pavel Machek <[email protected]>,Pekka Enberg <[email protected]>,Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]>,Ralf Baechle <[email protected]>,Rik van Riel <[email protected]>,Rob Landley <[email protected]>,Russell King <[email protected]>,Rusty Russell <[email protected]>,Shuah Khan <[email protected]>,Shuah Khan <[email protected]>,Steven Rostedt <[email protected]>,Thomas Gleixn! er <[email protected]>,=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ville_Syrj=E4l=E4?= <[email protected]>,Yasuaki Ishimatsu <[email protected]>,Zachary Amsden <[email protected]>,"[email protected]" <[email protected]>,"[email protected]" <[email protected]>,"[email protected]" <[email protected]>,"[email protected]" <[email protected]>,"[email protected]" <[email protected]>,"[email protected]" <[email protected]>,"[email protected]" <[email protected]> Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Again... you probably want to check into Dave's debug changes first. Makes more sense. Yinghai Lu <[email protected]> wrote: >On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 10:06 AM, Stefano Stabellini ><[email protected]> wrote: >> On Fri, 22 Feb 2013, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: >>> On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 09:12:57AM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote: >>> > On 02/22/2013 08:55 AM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: >>> > > >>> > >What is bizzare is that I do recall testing this (and Stefano >also did it). >>> > >So I am not sure what has altered. >>> > > >>> > >>> > Yes, there was a very specific reason why I wanted you guys to >test it... >>> >>> Exactly. And I re-ran the same test, but with a new kernel. This is >what >>> git reflog tells me: >>> >>> 473cd24 HEAD@{75}: checkout: moving from >08f321ed97353cf3b3fafa6b1c1971d6a8970830 to linux-next >>> 08f321e HEAD@{76}: checkout: moving from linux-next to >yinghai/for-x86-mm >>> eb827a7 HEAD@{77}: checkout: moving from >1b66ccf15ff4bd0200567e8d70446a8763f96ee7 to linux-next >>> [konrad@build linux]$ git show 08f321e >>> commit 08f321ed97353cf3b3fafa6b1c1971d6a8970830 >>> Author: Yinghai Lu <[email protected]> >>> Date: Thu Nov 8 00:00:19 2012 -0800 >>> >>> mm: Kill NO_BOOTMEM version free_all_bootmem_node() >>> >>> And I recall Stefano later on testing (I was in a conference and did >not have >>> the opportunity to test it). Not sure what he ran with. >>> >> >> FYI the last patch series I tested was Yinghai's "x86, boot, 64bit: >Add >> support for loading ramdisk and bzImage above 4G" v7u1. > > >the one in tip and linus's tree is >--- >-v7u2: update changelog and comments, and clear more fields for >sentinel. > Update swiotlb autoswitch off patch. > Fix crash with xen PV guest with 2G. >--- > >and it fixes xen crash that you reported with v7u1, and you tested >that add-on patch >fix_xen_2g.patch with v7u1. >and I fold the addon patch into offending patch in v7u2. > > >Thanks > >Yinghai -- Sent from my mobile phone. Please excuse brevity and lack of formatting. _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
