Max Krasnyansky wrote:
> I'd set the default to zero. I beleive that's what Heiko suggested too.
Oh, yes, you are right. I missed to catch the suggestion.
I'll post fixed version soon. Wait a minutes...
Thanks,
H.Seto
___
Virtualization mailing list
V
Hidetoshi Seto wrote:
> Thank you for useful feedbacks!
> Here is the updated version.
> Could you put this on top of your patches, Rusty?
>
> Thanks,
> H.Seto
>
>
> If stop_machine() invoked while one of onlined cpu is locked up
> by some reason, stop_machine cannot finish its work because th
Thank you for useful feedbacks!
Here is the updated version.
Could you put this on top of your patches, Rusty?
Thanks,
H.Seto
If stop_machine() invoked while one of onlined cpu is locked up
by some reason, stop_machine cannot finish its work because the
locked cpu cannot stop. This means all ot
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 11:38:50AM -0700, Zachary Amsden wrote:
>
> Nacked-by: Zachary Amsden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> What are you doing here and why aren't you cc-ing the maintainers?
Sorry. I was about to bring you into the loop.
Yinghai posted 32bit native apic_ops(similar to my 64bit apic o
[PATCH] virtio_net: Delay dropping tx skbs
Cc: Mark McLoughlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: Mark McLoughlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Heiko Carstens wrote:
> Hmm.. probably a stupid question: but what could happen that a real cpu
> (not virtual) becomes unresponsive so that it won't schedule a MAX_RT_PRIO-1
> prioritized task for 5 seconds?
The original problem (once I heard and easily reproduced) was there was an
another MAX_RT
On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 12:22 -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 11:51 AM, Suresh Siddha
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 11:38:50AM -0700, Zachary Amsden wrote:
> >>
> >> Nacked-by: Zachary Amsden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>
> >> What are you doing here and why a
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 11:51 AM, Suresh Siddha
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 11:38:50AM -0700, Zachary Amsden wrote:
>>
>> Nacked-by: Zachary Amsden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>> What are you doing here and why aren't you cc-ing the maintainers?
>
> Sorry. I was about to bring y
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 12:04 PM, Zachary Amsden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 11:51 -0700, Suresh Siddha wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 11:38:50AM -0700, Zachary Amsden wrote:
>> >
>> > Nacked-by: Zachary Amsden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >
>> > What are you doing here and why
On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 12:10 -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 12:04 PM, Zachary Amsden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 11:51 -0700, Suresh Siddha wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 11:38:50AM -0700, Zachary Amsden wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Nacked-by: Zachary Amsden
On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 11:51 -0700, Suresh Siddha wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 11:38:50AM -0700, Zachary Amsden wrote:
> >
> > Nacked-by: Zachary Amsden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > What are you doing here and why aren't you cc-ing the maintainers?
>
> Sorry. I was about to bring you into the lo
On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 11:52 -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> > Nacked-by: Zachary Amsden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> because of not ccing you?
Because it's wrong.
> >
> > What are you doing here and why aren't you cc-ing the maintainers?
>
> did you checking tip tree for x86 changing?
No, this was brou
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 11:38 AM, Zachary Amsden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 10:33 AM, Suresh Siddha
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 10:19:35PM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>> >>
>> >> fix for pv.
>> >>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Yinghai Lu <[EMAIL PROTE
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 10:33 AM, Suresh Siddha
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 10:19:35PM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> >>
> >> fix for pv.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Yinghai Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>
> >> ---
> >> arch/x86/kernel/paravirt.c |5
> >> arch/x86/ker
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 06:25:04PM +1000, Rusty Russell wrote:
>
> Oops. I grepped for LRO when I did this and found nothing.
>
> How's this one?
Looks good. Thanks!
--
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.or
Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Tuesday 15 July 2008 12:24:54 Max Krasnyansky wrote:
>> Heiko Carstens wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 11:56:18AM -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>>> This is asking for trouble... a config option to disable this would be
>>> nice. But as I don't know which problem thi
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 06:09:59PM +1000, Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Tuesday 15 July 2008 12:24:54 Max Krasnyansky wrote:
> > Heiko Carstens wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 11:56:18AM -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> > > This is asking for trouble... a config option to disable this would be
On Tuesday 15 July 2008 13:52:09 Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 10:41:38PM -0500, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > + /* If we can receive ANY GSO packets, we must allocate large ones. */
> > + if (virtio_has_feature(vdev, VIRTIO_NET_F_GUEST_TSO4)
> > + || virtio_has_feature(vdev, VIR
On Tuesday 15 July 2008 12:24:54 Max Krasnyansky wrote:
> Heiko Carstens wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 11:56:18AM -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> > This is asking for trouble... a config option to disable this would be
> > nice. But as I don't know which problem this patch originally addre
19 matches
Mail list logo
