David Vrabel writes:
> On 29/06/16 10:16, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>> David Vrabel writes:
>>
>>> On 28/06/16 17:47, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
It may happen that Xen's and Linux's ideas of vCPU id diverge. In
particular, when we crash on a secondary vCPU we may want to do kdump
and
On 29/06/16 10:16, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> David Vrabel writes:
>
>> On 28/06/16 17:47, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>>> It may happen that Xen's and Linux's ideas of vCPU id diverge. In
>>> particular, when we crash on a secondary vCPU we may want to do kdump
>>> and unlike plain kexec where we do
David Vrabel writes:
> On 28/06/16 17:47, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>> It may happen that Xen's and Linux's ideas of vCPU id diverge. In
>> particular, when we crash on a secondary vCPU we may want to do kdump
>> and unlike plain kexec where we do migrate_to_reboot_cpu() we try booting
>> on the vC
On 28/06/16 17:47, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> It may happen that Xen's and Linux's ideas of vCPU id diverge. In
> particular, when we crash on a secondary vCPU we may want to do kdump
> and unlike plain kexec where we do migrate_to_reboot_cpu() we try booting
> on the vCPU which crashed. This doesn'
It may happen that Xen's and Linux's ideas of vCPU id diverge. In
particular, when we crash on a secondary vCPU we may want to do kdump
and unlike plain kexec where we do migrate_to_reboot_cpu() we try booting
on the vCPU which crashed. This doesn't work very well for PVHVM guests as
we have a numb
