On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 02:48:26PM +0100, Daniel Kiper wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 03:57:22AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > >>> On 24.10.16 at 11:03, wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > > It looks that it is last thing which blocks whole patch series.
> >
> > I don't think so - Andrew has (not via mail) a
On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 03:57:22AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 24.10.16 at 11:03, wrote:
[...]
> > It looks that it is last thing which blocks whole patch series.
>
> I don't think so - Andrew has (not via mail) already indicated he'd
> like to comment on the not insignificant amount of a
Hi Jan,
On 12/10/16 13:59, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 12.10.16 at 14:51, wrote:
Hello Jan,
On 12/10/2016 12:45, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 11.10.16 at 15:39, wrote:
On 06/10/16 13:21, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 05.10.16 at 20:30, wrote:
On 30/09/2016 02:46, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 29.09.16 at 23:42, w
>>> On 24.10.16 at 11:03, wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 06:59:52AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >>> On 12.10.16 at 14:51, wrote:
>> > Hello Jan,
>> >
>> > On 12/10/2016 12:45, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> > On 11.10.16 at 15:39, wrote:
>> >>> On 06/10/16 13:21, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >>> On 0
On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 06:59:52AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 12.10.16 at 14:51, wrote:
> > Hello Jan,
> >
> > On 12/10/2016 12:45, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > On 11.10.16 at 15:39, wrote:
> >>> On 06/10/16 13:21, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 05.10.16 at 20:30, wrote:
> > On 30/09/
>>> On 12.10.16 at 14:51, wrote:
> Hello Jan,
>
> On 12/10/2016 12:45, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 11.10.16 at 15:39, wrote:
>>> On 06/10/16 13:21, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 05.10.16 at 20:30, wrote:
> On 30/09/2016 02:46, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 29.09.16 at 23:42, wrote:
>
Hello Jan,
On 12/10/2016 12:45, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 11.10.16 at 15:39, wrote:
On 06/10/16 13:21, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 05.10.16 at 20:30, wrote:
On 30/09/2016 02:46, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 29.09.16 at 23:42, wrote:
+#else
+static void __init free_ebmalloc_unused_mem(void)
+{
+}
+#endif
>>> On 11.10.16 at 15:39, wrote:
> Hello Jan,
>
> On 06/10/16 13:21, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 05.10.16 at 20:30, wrote:
>>> On 30/09/2016 02:46, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 29.09.16 at 23:42, wrote:
> +#else
> +static void __init free_ebmalloc_unused_mem(void)
> +{
> +}
>>>
Hello Jan,
On 06/10/16 13:21, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 05.10.16 at 20:30, wrote:
On 30/09/2016 02:46, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 29.09.16 at 23:42, wrote:
+#else
+static void __init free_ebmalloc_unused_mem(void)
+{
+}
+#endif
Did you build test this for ARM? The function ought to be unused,
as .
>>> On 05.10.16 at 20:30, wrote:
> On 30/09/2016 02:46, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 29.09.16 at 23:42, wrote:
>>> +#else
>>> +static void __init free_ebmalloc_unused_mem(void)
>>> +{
>>> +}
>>> +#endif
>>
>> Did you build test this for ARM? The function ought to be unused,
>> as ...
>>
>>> @@ -12
Hi Jan,
Sorry for the late answer, I have been traveling the past 2 weeks.
On 30/09/2016 02:46, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 29.09.16 at 23:42, wrote:
+#else
+static void __init free_ebmalloc_unused_mem(void)
+{
+}
+#endif
Did you build test this for ARM? The function ought to be unused,
as ...
Hello Daniel,
On 05/10/2016 00:02, Daniel Kiper wrote:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 03:46:54AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 29.09.16 at 23:42, wrote:
+#else
+static void __init free_ebmalloc_unused_mem(void)
+{
+}
+#endif
Did you build test this for ARM? The function ought to be unused,
as ...
On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 03:46:54AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 29.09.16 at 23:42, wrote:
> > +#else
> > +static void __init free_ebmalloc_unused_mem(void)
> > +{
> > +}
> > +#endif
>
> Did you build test this for ARM? The function ought to be unused,
> as ...
>
> > @@ -1251,6 +1301,8 @@ voi
On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 03:46:54AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 29.09.16 at 23:42, wrote:
> > +#else
> > +static void __init free_ebmalloc_unused_mem(void)
> > +{
> > +}
> > +#endif
>
> Did you build test this for ARM? The function ought to be unused,
> as ...
Nope.
> > @@ -1251,6 +1301,8
>>> On 29.09.16 at 23:42, wrote:
> +#else
> +static void __init free_ebmalloc_unused_mem(void)
> +{
> +}
> +#endif
Did you build test this for ARM? The function ought to be unused,
as ...
> @@ -1251,6 +1301,8 @@ void __init efi_init_memory(void)
> } *extra, *extra_head = NULL;
> #endif
>
There is a problem with place_string() which is used as early memory
allocator. It gets memory chunks starting from start symbol and goes
down. Sadly this does not work when Xen is loaded using multiboot2
protocol because then the start lives on 1 MiB address and we should
not allocate a memory fro
16 matches
Mail list logo
