On 09/02/2014 09:22 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 06:03:06AM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
On 08/29/2014 04:55 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 03:44:06PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 29.08.14 at 16:27, wrote:
Sure. Btw, someone also contacted
On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 06:03:06AM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 08/29/2014 04:55 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> >On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 03:44:06PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >On 29.08.14 at 16:27, wrote:
> >>>Sure. Btw, someone also contacted me saying they have the same problem
> >>
On 08/29/2014 04:55 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 03:44:06PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 29.08.14 at 16:27, wrote:
Sure. Btw, someone also contacted me saying they have the same problem
without
changing the layout but having really big initrd (500M). While that feel
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 03:44:06PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 29.08.14 at 16:27, wrote:
> > Sure. Btw, someone also contacted me saying they have the same problem
> > without
> > changing the layout but having really big initrd (500M). While that feels
> > like
> > it should be impossibl
>>> On 29.08.14 at 16:27, wrote:
> Sure. Btw, someone also contacted me saying they have the same problem
> without
> changing the layout but having really big initrd (500M). While that feels
> like
> it should be impossible (if the kernel+initrd+xen stuff has to fix the 512M
> kernel image size
On 29/08/14 15:32, Stefan Bader wrote:
> On 29.08.2014 16:19, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> On 29/08/14 09:37, Stefan Bader wrote:
>>> On 29.08.2014 00:42, Andrew Cooper wrote:
On 28/08/2014 19:01, Stefan Bader wrote:
>>> So not much further... but then I think I know what I do next. Probably
>
On 29.08.2014 16:19, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 29/08/14 09:37, Stefan Bader wrote:
>> On 29.08.2014 00:42, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>> On 28/08/2014 19:01, Stefan Bader wrote:
>> So not much further... but then I think I know what I do next. Probably
>> should
>> have done before. I'll re
On 29/08/14 09:37, Stefan Bader wrote:
> On 29.08.2014 00:42, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> On 28/08/2014 19:01, Stefan Bader wrote:
> So not much further... but then I think I know what I do next. Probably
> should
> have done before. I'll replace the WARN_ON in vmalloc that triggers by a
On 29.08.2014 00:42, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 28/08/2014 19:01, Stefan Bader wrote:
So not much further... but then I think I know what I do next. Probably
should
have done before. I'll replace the WARN_ON in vmalloc that triggers by a
panic
and at least get a crash dump
On 28/08/2014 19:01, Stefan Bader wrote:
>>> So not much further... but then I think I know what I do next. Probably
>>> should
>>> have done before. I'll replace the WARN_ON in vmalloc that triggers by a
>>> panic
>>> and at least get a crash dump of that situation when it occurs. Then I can
>>
10 matches
Mail list logo