On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 03:05:45PM +0530, Bharata B Rao wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 11:50:04AM +0530, Bharata B Rao wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 11:56:04AM +0100, Andreas Färber wrote:
> > > Am 17.03.2015 um 09:39 schrieb Bharata B Rao:
> > > > On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 07:56:41AM +0100, A
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 11:50:04AM +0530, Bharata B Rao wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 11:56:04AM +0100, Andreas Färber wrote:
> > Am 17.03.2015 um 09:39 schrieb Bharata B Rao:
> > > On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 07:56:41AM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On 13.03.15 12:56, Bharata B
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 11:50:04AM +0530, Bharata B Rao wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 11:56:04AM +0100, Andreas Färber wrote:
> > Am 17.03.2015 um 09:39 schrieb Bharata B Rao:
> > > On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 07:56:41AM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On 13.03.15 12:56, Bharata B
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 12:04:04PM +0530, Bharata B Rao wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 11:49:59AM +1100, David Gibson wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 05:26:36PM +0530, Bharata B Rao wrote:
> > > From: Bharata B Rao
> > >
> > > Currently CPUState.cpu_index is monotonically increasing and a ne
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 11:49:59AM +1100, David Gibson wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 05:26:36PM +0530, Bharata B Rao wrote:
> > From: Bharata B Rao
> >
> > Currently CPUState.cpu_index is monotonically increasing and a newly
> > created CPU always gets the next higher index. The next available
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 11:51:36AM +0100, Andreas Färber wrote:
> Am 13.03.2015 um 12:56 schrieb Bharata B Rao:
> > From: Bharata B Rao
> >
> > Currently CPUState.cpu_index is monotonically increasing and a newly
> > created CPU always gets the next higher index. The next available
> > index is c
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 11:56:04AM +0100, Andreas Färber wrote:
> Am 17.03.2015 um 09:39 schrieb Bharata B Rao:
> > On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 07:56:41AM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 13.03.15 12:56, Bharata B Rao wrote:
> >>> From: Bharata B Rao
> >>>
> >>> Currently CPUState.cpu_in
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 05:26:36PM +0530, Bharata B Rao wrote:
> From: Bharata B Rao
>
> Currently CPUState.cpu_index is monotonically increasing and a newly
> created CPU always gets the next higher index. The next available
> index is calculated by counting the existing number of CPUs. This is
Am 17.03.2015 um 09:39 schrieb Bharata B Rao:
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 07:56:41AM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 13.03.15 12:56, Bharata B Rao wrote:
>>> From: Bharata B Rao
>>>
>>> Currently CPUState.cpu_index is monotonically increasing and a newly
>>> created CPU always gets the next
Am 13.03.2015 um 12:56 schrieb Bharata B Rao:
> From: Bharata B Rao
>
> Currently CPUState.cpu_index is monotonically increasing and a newly
> created CPU always gets the next higher index. The next available
> index is calculated by counting the existing number of CPUs. This is
> fine as long as
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 07:56:41AM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
>
> On 13.03.15 12:56, Bharata B Rao wrote:
> > From: Bharata B Rao
> >
> > Currently CPUState.cpu_index is monotonically increasing and a newly
> > created CPU always gets the next higher index. The next available
> > index is c
On 13.03.15 12:56, Bharata B Rao wrote:
> From: Bharata B Rao
>
> Currently CPUState.cpu_index is monotonically increasing and a newly
> created CPU always gets the next higher index. The next available
> index is calculated by counting the existing number of CPUs. This is
> fine as long as we
From: Bharata B Rao
Currently CPUState.cpu_index is monotonically increasing and a newly
created CPU always gets the next higher index. The next available
index is calculated by counting the existing number of CPUs. This is
fine as long as we only add CPUs, but there are architectures which
are s
13 matches
Mail list logo