On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 11:12 AM, Tim Deegan wrote:
> Hi,
>
> At 17:38 + on 07 Jul (1436290689), Sahita, Ravi wrote:
>> In order to make forward progress, do the other maintainers (Jan,
>> Andrew, Tim) agree with the patch direction that George has
>> suggested for this particular patch?
>
> I'
Hi,
At 17:38 + on 07 Jul (1436290689), Sahita, Ravi wrote:
> In order to make forward progress, do the other maintainers (Jan,
> Andrew, Tim) agree with the patch direction that George has
> suggested for this particular patch?
I'm no longer a maintainer for this code, but FWIW I think that t
>>> On 07.07.15 at 19:38, wrote:
> In order to make forward progress, do the other maintainers (Jan, Andrew,
> Tim) agree with the patch direction that George has suggested for this
> particular patch?
I for my part do, with the assumption that post-4.6 consolidation of
the increasingly ugly i
>>> On 07.07.15 at 18:24, wrote:
> I'm disappointed that you think that. I respect yours, Jan's, etc. role
> as maintainers, and your absolute right to reject anything you think
> is inappropriate. It's clear that Jan, and now apparently you, don't
> respect my abilities or desire to do good work.
>From: George Dunlap [mailto:george.dun...@eu.citrix.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2015 10:34 AM
>
>On 07/07/2015 05:24 PM, Ed White wrote:
>> On 07/07/2015 03:10 AM, George Dunlap wrote:
>>> On 07/06/2015 07:43 PM, Ed White wrote:
> Introducing yet another layer -- particularly in a hooked i
On 07/07/2015 05:24 PM, Ed White wrote:
> On 07/07/2015 03:10 AM, George Dunlap wrote:
>> On 07/06/2015 07:43 PM, Ed White wrote:
Introducing yet another layer -- particularly in a hooked interface like
this -- just seems clunky. It's not the worst thing in the world; if I
thought t
On 07/07/2015 03:10 AM, George Dunlap wrote:
> On 07/06/2015 07:43 PM, Ed White wrote:
>>> Introducing yet another layer -- particularly in a hooked interface like
>>> this -- just seems clunky. It's not the worst thing in the world; if I
>>> thought this would be the difference between making it
On 07/06/2015 07:43 PM, Ed White wrote:
>> Introducing yet another layer -- particularly in a hooked interface like
>> this -- just seems clunky. It's not the worst thing in the world; if I
>> thought this would be the difference between making it or not, I might
>> just say fix it later. But I d
>>> On 06.07.15 at 20:29, wrote:
> On 07/06/2015 06:35 PM, Ed White wrote:
>> I certainly don't want to speak for Jan, but my reading of his
>> comments suggests that wouldn't be enough to satisfy him. He
>> seemed to me to object to the whole idea of adding something
>> specifically to handle sup
On 07/06/2015 11:29 AM, George Dunlap wrote:
> On 07/06/2015 06:35 PM, Ed White wrote:
>> On 07/06/2015 10:12 AM, George Dunlap wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 5:27 PM, Ed White wrote:
On 06/25/2015 11:04 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 25.06.15 at 18:36, wrote:
>> On 06/25/2015 01
On 07/06/2015 06:35 PM, Ed White wrote:
> On 07/06/2015 10:12 AM, George Dunlap wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 5:27 PM, Ed White wrote:
>>> On 06/25/2015 11:04 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 25.06.15 at 18:36, wrote:
> On 06/25/2015 01:12 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 24.06.15 at
On 07/06/2015 10:12 AM, George Dunlap wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 5:27 PM, Ed White wrote:
>> On 06/25/2015 11:04 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 25.06.15 at 18:36, wrote:
On 06/25/2015 01:12 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 24.06.15 at 19:53, wrote:
>> On 06/24/2015 07:38 AM, J
On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 5:27 PM, Ed White wrote:
> On 06/25/2015 11:04 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 25.06.15 at 18:36, wrote:
>>> On 06/25/2015 01:12 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 24.06.15 at 19:53, wrote:
> On 06/24/2015 07:38 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 22.06.15 at 20:56, w
On 06/25/2015 11:04 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 25.06.15 at 18:36, wrote:
>> On 06/25/2015 01:12 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 24.06.15 at 19:53, wrote:
On 06/24/2015 07:38 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 22.06.15 at 20:56, wrote:
>> --- a/xen/include/asm-x86/p2m.h
>> +++ b
>>> On 25.06.15 at 18:36, wrote:
> On 06/25/2015 01:12 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 24.06.15 at 19:53, wrote:
>>> On 06/24/2015 07:38 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 22.06.15 at 20:56, wrote:
> --- a/xen/include/asm-x86/p2m.h
> +++ b/xen/include/asm-x86/p2m.h
> @@ -237,6 +237,19
On 06/25/2015 01:12 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 24.06.15 at 19:53, wrote:
>> On 06/24/2015 07:38 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 22.06.15 at 20:56, wrote:
--- a/xen/include/asm-x86/p2m.h
+++ b/xen/include/asm-x86/p2m.h
@@ -237,6 +237,19 @@ struct p2m_domain {
>>> On 24.06.15 at 19:53, wrote:
> On 06/24/2015 07:38 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 22.06.15 at 20:56, wrote:
>>> --- a/xen/include/asm-x86/p2m.h
>>> +++ b/xen/include/asm-x86/p2m.h
>>> @@ -237,6 +237,19 @@ struct p2m_domain {
>>> p2m_access_t *p2ma,
>>>
On 06/24/2015 07:38 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 22.06.15 at 20:56, wrote:
>> --- a/xen/include/asm-x86/p2m.h
>> +++ b/xen/include/asm-x86/p2m.h
>> @@ -237,6 +237,19 @@ struct p2m_domain {
>> p2m_access_t *p2ma,
>> p
>>> On 22.06.15 at 20:56, wrote:
> --- a/xen/include/asm-x86/p2m.h
> +++ b/xen/include/asm-x86/p2m.h
> @@ -237,6 +237,19 @@ struct p2m_domain {
> p2m_access_t *p2ma,
> p2m_query_t q,
>
On 22/06/15 19:56, Ed White wrote:
> The existing ept_set_entry() and ept_get_entry() routines are extended
> to optionally set/get suppress_ve and renamed. New ept_set_entry() and
> ept_get_entry() routines are provided as wrappers, where set preserves
> suppress_ve for an existing entry and sets
The existing ept_set_entry() and ept_get_entry() routines are extended
to optionally set/get suppress_ve and renamed. New ept_set_entry() and
ept_get_entry() routines are provided as wrappers, where set preserves
suppress_ve for an existing entry and sets it for a new entry.
Additional function po
21 matches
Mail list logo
