Re: [PATCH 0/10] Tree fixes for PARAVIRT

2008-01-22 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Glauber de Oliveira Costa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jan 18, 2008 8:02 PM, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > * 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

Re: [PATCH 0/10] Tree fixes for PARAVIRT

2008-01-18 Thread Glauber de Oliveira Costa
On Jan 18, 2008 8:02 PM, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > * 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 rush

Re: [PATCH 0/10] Tree fixes for PARAVIRT

2008-01-18 Thread Jeremy Fitzhardinge
Zachary Amsden wrote: 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. x86.git is out of the mainline tree, and it seems to be worki

Re: [PATCH 0/10] Tree fixes for PARAVIRT

2008-01-18 Thread Ingo Molnar
* 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 configura

Re: [PATCH 0/10] Tree fixes for PARAVIRT

2008-01-18 Thread Zachary Amsden
On Fri, 2008-01-18 at 22:37 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > The first fix is not even specific for PARAVIRT, and it's actually > > > preventing the whole tree from booting. > > > > on CONFIG_EFI, indeed :) > > but in exchange you broke all of 32-bit

Re: [PATCH 0/10] Tree fixes for PARAVIRT

2008-01-18 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The first fix is not even specific for PARAVIRT, and it's actually > > preventing the whole tree from booting. > > on CONFIG_EFI, indeed :) but in exchange you broke all of 32-bit with CONFIG_PARAVIRT=y. Which means you did not even build-test it o

Re: [PATCH 0/10] Tree fixes for PARAVIRT

2008-01-18 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Glauber de Oliveira Costa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > This small series provides some more fixes towards the goal to have > the PARAVIRT selectable for x86_64. After that, just some more small > steps are needed. thanks, applied. > The first fix is not even specific for PARAVIRT, and it

[PATCH 0/10] Tree fixes for PARAVIRT

2008-01-18 Thread Glauber de Oliveira Costa
Hi, This small series provides some more fixes towards the goal to have the PARAVIRT selectable for x86_64. After that, just some more small steps are needed. The first fix is not even specific for PARAVIRT, and it's actually preventing the whole tree from booting. -- To unsubscribe from this l