> On 9 Jun 2015, at 10:38, Wei Liu wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 10:29:56AM +0100, Wei Liu wrote:
> [...]
+ con.next_tid <- initial_next_tid
>>>
>>> I couldn’t spot the part in the C version where the next transaction id is
>>> reset — is this a (minor) difference between the two im
On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 10:29:56AM +0100, Wei Liu wrote:
[...]
> > > + con.next_tid <- initial_next_tid
> >
> > I couldn’t spot the part in the C version where the next transaction id is
> > reset — is this a (minor) difference between the two implementations, or
> > have I misread the code?
>
On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 09:19:19AM +0100, Dave Scott wrote:
>
> > On 8 Jun 2015, at 18:43, Wei Liu wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 08, 2015 at 04:53:46PM +0100, Wei Liu wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 03:35:18PM +0200, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> >>> Jan and Tim,
> >>>
> >>> last week you expresse
> On 8 Jun 2015, at 18:43, Wei Liu wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 08, 2015 at 04:53:46PM +0100, Wei Liu wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 03:35:18PM +0200, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>>> Jan and Tim,
>>>
>>> last week you expressed some concerns about if the toolstack-based
>>> approach to PVHVM guest kex
On Mon, Jun 08, 2015 at 04:53:46PM +0100, Wei Liu wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 03:35:18PM +0200, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> > Jan and Tim,
> >
> > last week you expressed some concerns about if the toolstack-based
> > approach to PVHVM guest kexec is the best. Here you can see the 'reset
> > ev
On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 03:35:18PM +0200, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> Jan and Tim,
>
> last week you expressed some concerns about if the toolstack-based
> approach to PVHVM guest kexec is the best. Here you can see the 'reset
> everything' approach to the same problem. It is the bare minimum of wha
Vitaly Kuznetsov writes ("[PATCH RFC 0/4] 'reset everything' approach to PVHVM
guest kexec"):
> 1) As XS_RESET_WATCHES is not supported by oxenstored we need to try removing
> the watch in case add operation failed, e.g.:
It would surely be better to fix oxenstored. IIRC the approach of
trying t
Hi,
At 15:35 +0200 on 03 Jun (1433345718), Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> last week you expressed some concerns about if the toolstack-based
> approach to PVHVM guest kexec is the best. Here you can see the 'reset
> everything' approach to the same problem. It is the bare minimum of what
> should be do
