On 08/22/2012 09:22 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 22.08.12 at 10:54, Alex Shi wrote:
>> On 08/22/2012 03:39 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>
>> Alex Shi 08/22/12 5:24 AM >>>
On 08/20/2012 10:12 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
I was thought you have 'Agreed' for xen part code. :)
>>>
>>> I had agr
>>> On 22.08.12 at 10:54, Alex Shi wrote:
> On 08/22/2012 03:39 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>
> Alex Shi 08/22/12 5:24 AM >>>
>>> On 08/20/2012 10:12 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> I was thought you have 'Agreed' for xen part code. :)
>>
>> I had agreed to it being done the right way, and I had poin
On 08/22/2012 03:39 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
Alex Shi 08/22/12 5:24 AM >>>
>> On 08/20/2012 10:12 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> I was thought you have 'Agreed' for xen part code. :)
>
> I had agreed to it being done the right way, and I had pointed out the
> problem once. I can't say for sure tha
On 08/22/2012 03:44 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
Alex Shi 08/22/12 5:27 AM >>>
>>> Second, the UV code doesn't flush the full range at all, it simply
>>> ignores its 'end' parameter (and hence also the "all" indicator).
>>
>> Sure. the following rfc patch try to fix it. untested since no hardware.
>>> Alex Shi 08/22/12 5:27 AM >>>
>> Second, the UV code doesn't flush the full range at all, it simply
>> ignores its 'end' parameter (and hence also the "all" indicator).
>
>Sure. the following rfc patch try to fix it. untested since no hardware.
Sure - this needs to be looked at by a person k
>>> Alex Shi 08/22/12 5:24 AM >>>
>On 08/20/2012 10:12 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>I was thought you have 'Agreed' for xen part code. :)
I had agreed to it being done the right way, and I had pointed out the
problem once. I can't say for sure that I looked at the most recent rev
closely enough to spo
> Second, the UV code doesn't flush the full range at all, it simply
> ignores its 'end' parameter (and hence also the "all" indicator).
>
Sure. the following rfc patch try to fix it. untested since no hardware.
=
diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/uv/uv_bau.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/uv/u
On 08/20/2012 10:12 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> Alex,
>
> without even having run that code yet, I think I see two bugs here,
> both of which I'm pretty sure I pointed out at least once during the
> review cycle:
I was thought you have 'Agreed' for xen part code. :)
>
> For one, while TLB_FLUSH_
Alex,
without even having run that code yet, I think I see two bugs here,
both of which I'm pretty sure I pointed out at least once during the
review cycle:
For one, while TLB_FLUSH_ALL gets passed as 'end' argument to
flush_tlb_others(), the Xen code was made to check its 'start'
parameter.
Sec
9 matches
Mail list logo