On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 1:38 AM Sergey Bugaev wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 11:59 PM Samuel Thibault
> wrote:
> > Please notably review the RPC part, I really don't know that much about
> > mig.
>
> Some nitpicks inline. Flávio, does what I'm saying below make sense to you?
>
> > +
Hello,
On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 11:59 PM Samuel Thibault
wrote:
> Please notably review the RPC part, I really don't know that much about
> mig.
Some nitpicks inline. Flávio, does what I'm saying below make sense to you?
> +/*
> + * vm_pages_phys returns information about a region of memory
Hi
On Sun, Jan 14, 2024 at 7:13 PM Samuel Thibault
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Flávio Cruz, le mar. 05 déc. 2023 01:27:30 -0500, a ecrit:
> > On Sat, Dec 2, 2023 at 8:30 PM Samuel Thibault <[1]
> samuel.thiba...@gnu.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Yes, sure, anything will do.
> > >
> > > I essentially mean th
Hello
On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 3:59 PM Samuel Thibault
wrote:
> For rumpdisk to efficiently determine the physical address, both for
> checking whether it is below 4GiB, and for giving it to the disk
> driver, we need a gnumach primitive (and that is not conditioned by
> MACH_VM_DEBUG like mach_v
On 29 Jan 2024, at 10:20, Samuel Thibault wrote:
>
> Damien Zammit, le lun. 29 janv. 2024 10:07:30 +, a ecrit:
>> - ljmp $BOOT_CS, $M(0f)
>> + xorl %eax, %eax
>> + mov %cs, %ax
>> + shll $4, %eax
>> + addl $M(0f), %eax
>> + movl %eax, M(ljmp_offset32)
>
> This won't work with pipelined proce
Hi Samuel,
On 1/29/24 9:20 PM, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Damien Zammit, le lun. 29 janv. 2024 10:07:30 +, a ecrit:
>> -ljmp$BOOT_CS, $M(0f)
>> +xorl%eax, %eax
>> +mov %cs, %ax
>> +shll$4, %eax
>> +addl$M(0f), %eax
>> +movl%eax, M(ljmp_offset32)
>
For rumpdisk to efficiently determine the physical address, both for
checking whether it is below 4GiB, and for giving it to the disk
driver, we need a gnumach primitive (and that is not conditioned by
MACH_VM_DEBUG like mach_vm_region_info and mach_vm_object_pages_phys
are).
---
Please notably re
Applied, thanks!
Damien Zammit, le lun. 29 janv. 2024 10:06:57 +, a ecrit:
> Previously, only IOAPIC[0] was supported.
> Now this supports up to two IOAPICs.
>
> ---
> i386/i386/apic.c | 13 +
> i386/i386/apic.h | 6 ++-
> i386/i386/locore.S| 43 +++
Damien Zammit, le lun. 29 janv. 2024 10:07:30 +, a ecrit:
> - ljmp$BOOT_CS, $M(0f)
> + xorl%eax, %eax
> + mov %cs, %ax
> + shll$4, %eax
> + addl$M(0f), %eax
> + movl%eax, M(ljmp_offset32)
This won't work with pipelined processors, which assume a
Hello,
Damien Zammit, le lun. 29 janv. 2024 10:06:38 +, a ecrit:
> Clear flag in msr for xAPIC mode.
>
> ---
> i386/i386/apic.h | 3 ++-
> i386/i386/cpuboot.S | 3 ++-
> i386/i386at/boothdr.S | 3 ++-
> 3 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/i386/i386/apic.
This took some time to figure out.
Involves hand-crafted 16 bit assembly instructions [1]
because GNU AS does not fully understand real-mode x86.
[1] Intel Architecture Software Developer's Manual,
Volume 2: Instruction Set Reference Manual
---
i386/i386/cpuboot.S | 32 ++
Clear flag in msr for xAPIC mode.
---
i386/i386/apic.h | 3 ++-
i386/i386/cpuboot.S | 3 ++-
i386/i386at/boothdr.S | 3 ++-
3 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/i386/i386/apic.h b/i386/i386/apic.h
index e870dcf8..9f908159 100644
--- a/i386/i386/apic.h
+++ b/i386/i
Previously, only IOAPIC[0] was supported.
Now this supports up to two IOAPICs.
---
i386/i386/apic.c | 13 +
i386/i386/apic.h | 6 ++-
i386/i386/locore.S| 43 +
i386/i386at/acpi_parse_apic.c | 3 ++
i386/i386at/int_init.c| 6 ++-
13 matches
Mail list logo
