* Zachary Amsden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > but in exchange you broke all of 32-bit with CONFIG_PARAVIRT=y.
> > Which means you did not even build-test it on 32-bit, let alone boot
> > test it...
>
> Why are we rushing so much to do 64-bit paravirt that we are breaking
> working configurations? If the developement is going to be this
> chaotic, it should be done and tested out of tree until it can
> stabilize.
what you see is a open feedback cycle conducted on lkml. People send
patches for arch/x86, and we tell them if it breaks something. The bug
was found before i pushed out the x86.git devel tree (and the fix is
below - but this shouldnt matter to you because the bug never hit a
public x86.git tree).
Ingo
Index: linux/include/asm-x86/paravirt.h
===================================================================
--- linux.orig/include/asm-x86/paravirt.h
+++ linux/include/asm-x86/paravirt.h
@@ -619,6 +619,7 @@ static inline void write_cr4(unsigned lo
PVOP_VCALL1(pv_cpu_ops.write_cr4, x);
}
+#ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
static inline unsigned long read_cr8(void)
{
return PVOP_CALL0(unsigned long, pv_cpu_ops.read_cr8);
@@ -628,6 +629,7 @@ static inline void write_cr8(unsigned lo
{
PVOP_VCALL1(pv_cpu_ops.write_cr8, x);
}
+#endif
static inline void raw_safe_halt(void)
{
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
