>>> On 04.05.17 at 11:47, wrote:
> On 14/02/17 10:51, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 07.02.17 at 00:32, wrote:
>>> Commit c7bdecae42 ("x86/apicv: fix RTC periodic timer and apicv issue") has
>>> added a assertion that intack.vector is the highest priority vector. But
>>> according to the osstest, th
Hi,
On 14/02/17 10:51, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 07.02.17 at 00:32, wrote:
Commit c7bdecae42 ("x86/apicv: fix RTC periodic timer and apicv issue") has
added a assertion that intack.vector is the highest priority vector. But
according to the osstest, the assertion failed sometimes. More discussion
Hi Jan,
On 02/14/2017 10:51 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 07.02.17 at 00:32, wrote:
Commit c7bdecae42 ("x86/apicv: fix RTC periodic timer and apicv issue") has
added a assertion that intack.vector is the highest priority vector. But
according to the osstest, the assertion failed sometimes. More di
(Resending the e-mail due to SMTP issue)
On 02/14/2017 12:12 PM, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi Jan,
On 02/14/2017 10:51 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 07.02.17 at 00:32, wrote:
Commit c7bdecae42 ("x86/apicv: fix RTC periodic timer and apicv
issue") has
added a assertion that intack.vector is the highest
>>> On 07.02.17 at 00:32, wrote:
> Commit c7bdecae42 ("x86/apicv: fix RTC periodic timer and apicv issue") has
> added a assertion that intack.vector is the highest priority vector. But
> according to the osstest, the assertion failed sometimes. More discussion can
> be found in the thread
> (http
> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:jbeul...@suse.com]
> Sent: Friday, February 10, 2017 5:36 PM
>
> >>> On 07.02.17 at 00:32, wrote:
> > Commit c7bdecae42 ("x86/apicv: fix RTC periodic timer and apicv issue") has
> > added a assertion that intack.vector is the highest priority vector. But
> > according
>>> On 07.02.17 at 00:32, wrote:
> Commit c7bdecae42 ("x86/apicv: fix RTC periodic timer and apicv issue") has
> added a assertion that intack.vector is the highest priority vector. But
> according to the osstest, the assertion failed sometimes. More discussion can
> be found in the thread
> (http
>>> On 08.02.17 at 08:49, wrote:
> Curious how this issue was initially caught? Would same practice make
> sure next fail catching our eye?
I guess Andrew just happened to look at the logs of a spurious
failure of some test.
Jan
___
Xen-devel mailing
On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 04:06:53PM +0800, Tian, Kevin wrote:
>> From: Gao, Chao
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2017 8:12 AM
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 09:18:56AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 07.02.17 at 08:28, wrote:
>> >> On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 06:46:16AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
> From: Gao, Chao
> Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2017 8:12 AM
>
> On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 09:18:56AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 07.02.17 at 08:28, wrote:
> >> On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 06:46:16AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> On 07.02.17 at 07:32, wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 07, 2017
> From: Wei Liu [mailto:wei.l...@citrix.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2017 6:05 PM
>
> On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 02:51:54AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > >>> On 07.02.17 at 00:32, wrote:
> > > Commit c7bdecae42 ("x86/apicv: fix RTC periodic timer and apicv issue")
> > > has
> > > added a asse
On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 09:18:56AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 07.02.17 at 08:28, wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 06:46:16AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 07.02.17 at 07:32, wrote:
On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 03:04:32AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 07.02.17 at 07:48, wrot
>>> On 07.02.17 at 08:28, wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 06:46:16AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 07.02.17 at 07:32, wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 03:04:32AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 07.02.17 at 07:48, wrote:
> Some comment from QEMU/KVM code, in /arch/x86/kvm/lapic.c
On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 06:46:16AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 07.02.17 at 07:32, wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 03:04:32AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 07.02.17 at 07:48, wrote:
Some comment from QEMU/KVM code, in /arch/x86/kvm/lapic.c,
int kvm_lapic_find_highest_
>>> On 07.02.17 at 07:32, wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 03:04:32AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 07.02.17 at 07:48, wrote:
>>> Some comment from QEMU/KVM code, in /arch/x86/kvm/lapic.c,
>>>
>>> int kvm_lapic_find_highest_irr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>> {
>>> /* This may race with sett
On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 03:04:32AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 07.02.17 at 07:48, wrote:
>> Some comment from QEMU/KVM code, in /arch/x86/kvm/lapic.c,
>>
>> int kvm_lapic_find_highest_irr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>> {
>> /* This may race with setting of irr in __apic_accept_irq() and
>>
>>> On 07.02.17 at 07:48, wrote:
> Some comment from QEMU/KVM code, in /arch/x86/kvm/lapic.c,
>
> int kvm_lapic_find_highest_irr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> {
> /* This may race with setting of irr in __apic_accept_irq() and
>* value returned may be wrong, but kvm_vcpu_kick() in __apic
On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 02:51:54AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 07.02.17 at 00:32, wrote:
> > Commit c7bdecae42 ("x86/apicv: fix RTC periodic timer and apicv issue") has
> > added a assertion that intack.vector is the highest priority vector. But
> > according to the osstest, the assertion f
>>> On 07.02.17 at 00:32, wrote:
> Commit c7bdecae42 ("x86/apicv: fix RTC periodic timer and apicv issue") has
> added a assertion that intack.vector is the highest priority vector. But
> according to the osstest, the assertion failed sometimes. More discussion can
> be found in the thread
> (http
On February 07, 2017 7:33 AM, Chao Gao wrote:
>Commit c7bdecae42 ("x86/apicv: fix RTC periodic timer and apicv issue")
>has added a assertion that intack.vector is the highest priority vector. But
>according to the osstest, the assertion failed sometimes. More discussion
>can be found in the thread
20 matches
Mail list logo
