This seems like a harmless off by one overflow if "i" is the last
element in the vcpu->arch.cpuid_entries[] array.
Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter
---
Not tested. I always wonder if it's worth fixing these or if it's worth
reporting them? Either of those seem like a lot of work for something
harml
Il 20/02/2014 13:34, Dan Carpenter ha scritto:
> This seems like a harmless off by one overflow if "i" is the last
> element in the vcpu->arch.cpuid_entries[] array.
>
> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter
> ---
> Not tested. I always wonder if it's worth fixing these or if it's worth
> reporting them?
Am 20.02.2014 14:07, schrieb Paolo Bonzini:
> Il 20/02/2014 13:34, Dan Carpenter ha scritto:
>> This seems like a harmless off by one overflow if "i" is the last
>> element in the vcpu->arch.cpuid_entries[] array.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter
>> ---
>> Not tested. I always wonder if it's
On 19/02/14 17:02, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 6:35 AM, Zoltan Kiss wrote:
On 19/02/14 09:52, Ian Campbell wrote:
Can't we arrange things in the Xen hotplug scripts such that if the
root_block stuff isn't available/doesn't work we fallback to the
existing fe:ff:ff:ff:ff us
Il 20/02/2014 14:18, walter harms ha scritto:
Am 20.02.2014 14:07, schrieb Paolo Bonzini:
Il 20/02/2014 13:34, Dan Carpenter ha scritto:
This seems like a harmless off by one overflow if "i" is the last
element in the vcpu->arch.cpuid_entries[] array.
Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter
---
Not te
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 02:07:42PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 20/02/2014 13:34, Dan Carpenter ha scritto:
> > This seems like a harmless off by one overflow if "i" is the last
> > element in the vcpu->arch.cpuid_entries[] array.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter
> > ---
> > Not tested.
any help on this one ?
thanks!
@lejandrito
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 6:42 PM, Alejandro Comisario
wrote:
> Hi everyone.
> We are having a private cloud with more than 1000 phy servers.
> Each server has 128GB of RAM and 24 cores (2 heaxacores with HT
> enabled), but the amount of vms running on t
On 19/02/14 16:45, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 9:52 AM, Zoltan Kiss wrote:
On 15/02/14 02:59, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
From: "Luis R. Rodriguez"
It doesn't make sense for some interfaces to become a root bridge
at any point in time. One example is virtual backend interf
On 14.02.2014 18:21, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 06:02:32PM +0100, Stefan Bader wrote:
>> One thing I likely should do is to reinstall the exact same laptop with 64bit
>> kernel and userspace... maybe only 64bit kernel first... and make sure on my
>> side that this does not show
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 04:38:13PM +0100, Stefan Bader wrote:
> On 14.02.2014 18:21, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 06:02:32PM +0100, Stefan Bader wrote:
> >> One thing I likely should do is to reinstall the exact same laptop with
> >> 64bit
> >> kernel and userspace... maybe on
Add mising defines MAS0_GET_TLBSEL() and MAS1_GET_TSIZE() for Book3E.
Signed-off-by: Mihai Caraman
---
arch/powerpc/include/asm/mmu-book3e.h |6 +-
1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/mmu-book3e.h
b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/mmu-book3e.
Load external pid (lwepx) execution faults, generated by KVM accessing
guest contexts, needs to be handled by KVM. In the current implementation
the host kernel handles lwepx faults, searching for the faulting address
with its own Logical Partition ID (LPID) context! In case a host
translation is f
On booke3e we got the last instruction on the exist path, using
load external pid (lwepx) dedicated instruction. The current
implementation proved to be buggy, and the alternative, to hook
lwepx exceptions into KVM, is considered too intrusive for host.
In the proposed solution we gets the instruc
Load external pid (lwepx) instruction faults (when called from
KVM with guest context) needs to be handled by KVM. This implies
additional code in DO_KVM macro to identify the source of the
exception (which oiginate from KVM host rather than the guest).
The hook requires to check the Exception Synd
On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 09:59:33 -0800
"Luis R. Rodriguez" wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 9:08 AM, Stephen Hemminger
> wrote:
> > On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 09:02:06 -0800
> > "Luis R. Rodriguez" wrote:
> >
> >> Folks, what if I repurpose my patch to use the IFF_BRIDGE_NON_ROOT (or
> >> relabel to IFF_R
On 10/15/2013 04:18 PM, Xiexiangyou wrote:
> Thanks for your reply :-)
> The QEMU version is 1.5.1,and the KVM version is 3.6
>
> QEMU command:
> /usr/bin/qemu-kvm -name win2008_dc_5 -S -machine
> pc-i440fx-1.5,accel=kvm,usb=off -m 2048 -realtime mlock=off -smp
> 4,maxcpus=64,sockets=16,cores=4,
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 5:19 AM, Zoltan Kiss wrote:
> How about this: netback sets the root_block flag and a random MAC by
> default. So the default behaviour won't change, DAD will be happy, and
> userspace don't have to do anything unless it's using netback for STP root
> bridge (I don't think t
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 9:19 AM, Stephen Hemminger
wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 09:59:33 -0800 "Luis R. Rodriguez"
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 9:08 AM, Stephen Hemminger
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Please only use the netlink/sysfs flags fields that already exist
>> > for new features.
>>
>> S
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 6:47 AM, Zoltan Kiss wrote:
> On 19/02/14 16:45, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>
>> You seem to describe a case whereby it can make sense for xen-netback
>> interfaces to end up becoming the root port of a bridge. Can you
>> elaborate a little more on that as it was unclear the
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 4:56 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
> Note that there isn't yet a disable_ipv4 knob though, I was
> perhaps-too-subtly trying to get you to send a patch for it, since I can
> use it too :)
Sure, can you describe a little better the use case, as I could use
that for the commit log
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Zoltan Kiss wrote:
> On 19/02/14 17:20, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
On 19/02/14 17:20, Luis R. Rodriguez also wrote:
Zoltan has noted though some use cases of IPv4 or IPv6 addresses on
backends though <...>
>>
>> As discussed in the other threads thoug
On Wed, 2014-02-19 at 15:25 -0800, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-02-19 at 19:03 +1100, Vadim Rozenfeld wrote:
> > On Tue, 2014-02-18 at 13:00 -0800, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2014-02-10 at 11:05 -0800, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > > > Hi
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 06:42:56PM -0300, Alejandro Comisario wrote:
> Hi everyone.
> We are having a private cloud with more than 1000 phy servers.
> Each server has 128GB of RAM and 24 cores (2 heaxacores with HT
> enabled), but the amount of vms running on those servers versus the
> flavor (amou
> Il 17/01/2014 09:29, Christian Borntraeger ha scritto:
> > Michael,
> > do you have a quick way to check if srcu has a noticeable impact on int
> > injection on your systems? I am happy with either v2 or v3 of the patch,
> > but srcu_synchronize_expedited seems to have less latency impact on the
24 matches
Mail list logo
