On 02.07.2010, at 21:10, Scott Wood wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Jul 2010 20:47:44 +0200
> Alexander Graf wrote:
>
>>
>> On 02.07.2010, at 19:59, Hollis Blanchard wrote:
>>
>>> [Resending...]
>>>
>>> Please reconcile this with
>>> http://www.linux-kvm.org/page/PowerPC_Hypercall_ABI, which has been
>>>
On 04.07.2010, at 00:41, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-07-02 at 18:27 +0200, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>>> +To find out if we're running on KVM or not, we overlay the PVR
>>> register. Usually
>>> +the PVR register contains an id that identifies your CPU type. If,
>>> however,
On 04.07.2010, at 00:42, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-07-02 at 20:41 +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>> The u64s are 64-bit aligned, should they always be?
>>
>> That's obvious, isn't it? And the ABI only specifies u64s to be 32 bit
>> aligned, no? At least that's what ld and std sp
On 07/04/2010 12:04 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
My biggest concern about putting things in the device-tree is that I was trying
to keep things as separate as possible. Why does the firmware have to know that
it's running in KVM?
It doesn't need to know about kvm, it needs to know that a partic
On 04.07.2010, at 11:10, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 07/04/2010 12:04 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>
>> My biggest concern about putting things in the device-tree is that I was
>> trying to keep things as separate as possible. Why does the firmware have to
>> know that it's running in KVM?
>
> It do
On 04.07.2010, at 11:17, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
> On 04.07.2010, at 11:10, Avi Kivity wrote:
>
>> On 07/04/2010 12:04 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>>
>>> My biggest concern about putting things in the device-tree is that I was
>>> trying to keep things as separate as possible. Why does the fir
On 07/04/2010 12:17 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 04.07.2010, at 11:10, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 07/04/2010 12:04 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
My biggest concern about putting things in the device-tree is that I was trying
to keep things as separate as possible. Why does the firmware have t
On 07/04/2010 12:30 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
Considering how the parts of the draft that I read about sound like, that's not
the inventor's idea. PPC people love to see the BIOS be part of the
virtualization solution. I don't. That's the biggest difference here and reason
for us going diffe
On 07/02/2010 06:37 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
Alexander Graf wrote:
We need to override EA as well as PA lookups for the magic page. When the guest
tells us to project it, the magic page overrides any guest mappings.
In order to reflect that, we need to hook into all the MMU layers of KVM t
Hi Anthony,
On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 18:00:12 -0400 "Anthony G. Basile"
wrote:
>
> Hi guys, I just hit this in trying to stabilize some kernels on gentoo
> - -> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=326877. Has there been any
> upstream discussion about this? I haven't seen anything on lkml. I
>
10 matches
Mail list logo
