>>> On 03.06.19 at 21:57, wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 2:25 AM Jan Beulich wrote:
>>
>> >>> On 02.06.19 at 02:40, wrote:
>> > On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 3:35 AM Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >>
>> >> A couple of adjustments are needed to code checking for dom_cow, but
>> >> since there are pretty few i
On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 2:25 AM Jan Beulich wrote:
>
> >>> On 02.06.19 at 02:40, wrote:
> > On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 3:35 AM Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>
> >> A couple of adjustments are needed to code checking for dom_cow, but
> >> since there are pretty few it is probably better to adjust those than
>>> On 02.06.19 at 02:40, wrote:
> On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 3:35 AM Jan Beulich wrote:
>>
>> A couple of adjustments are needed to code checking for dom_cow, but
>> since there are pretty few it is probably better to adjust those than
>> to set up and keep around a never used domain.
>>
>> Take th
>>> On 31.05.19 at 19:13, wrote:
> On 31/05/2019 02:35, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> A couple of adjustments are needed to code checking for dom_cow, but
>> since there are pretty few it is probably better to adjust those than
>> to set up and keep around a never used domain.
>>
>> Take the opportunity a
On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 3:35 AM Jan Beulich wrote:
>
> A couple of adjustments are needed to code checking for dom_cow, but
> since there are pretty few it is probably better to adjust those than
> to set up and keep around a never used domain.
>
> Take the opportunity and tighten a BUG_ON() in em
Hi,
On 5/31/19 6:27 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Fri, 31 May 2019, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi Jan,
On 31/05/2019 11:46, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 31.05.19 at 12:34, wrote:
No it was a more generic statement on the stance "It already exists in
Xen so it is fine to spread them a bit more".
Oh,
On Fri, 31 May 2019, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi Jan,
>
> On 31/05/2019 11:46, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > > On 31.05.19 at 12:34, wrote:
> > > No it was a more generic statement on the stance "It already exists in
> > > Xen so it is fine to spread them a bit more".
> >
> > Oh, I see. Of course I'm
On 31/05/2019 02:35, Jan Beulich wrote:
> A couple of adjustments are needed to code checking for dom_cow, but
> since there are pretty few it is probably better to adjust those than
> to set up and keep around a never used domain.
>
> Take the opportunity and tighten a BUG_ON() in emul-priv-op.c:r
Hi Jan,
On 31/05/2019 11:46, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 31.05.19 at 12:34, wrote:
No it was a more generic statement on the stance "It already exists in
Xen so it is fine to spread them a bit more".
Oh, I see. Of course I'm making remarks when what's in the tree is
bad (as per e.g. coding style,
>>> On 31.05.19 at 12:34, wrote:
> No it was a more generic statement on the stance "It already exists in
> Xen so it is fine to spread them a bit more".
Oh, I see. Of course I'm making remarks when what's in the tree is
bad (as per e.g. coding style, or if not mentioned there than in my
persona
Hi Jan,
On 5/31/19 11:31 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 31.05.19 at 12:10, wrote:
On 5/31/19 11:03 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 31.05.19 at 11:52, wrote:
On 5/31/19 10:49 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 31.05.19 at 11:42, wrote:
On 5/31/19 10:35 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
--- a/xen/include/xen/mm.h
+++ b
>>> On 31.05.19 at 12:10, wrote:
> On 5/31/19 11:03 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 31.05.19 at 11:52, wrote:
>>> On 5/31/19 10:49 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 31.05.19 at 11:42, wrote:
> On 5/31/19 10:35 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> --- a/xen/include/xen/mm.h
>> +++ b/xen/include/
Hi Jan,
On 5/31/19 11:03 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 31.05.19 at 11:52, wrote:
On 5/31/19 10:49 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 31.05.19 at 11:42, wrote:
On 5/31/19 10:35 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
--- a/xen/include/xen/mm.h
+++ b/xen/include/xen/mm.h
@@ -644,6 +644,9 @@ static inline void filtered_fl
>>> On 31.05.19 at 11:52, wrote:
> On 5/31/19 10:49 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 31.05.19 at 11:42, wrote:
>>> On 5/31/19 10:35 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
--- a/xen/include/xen/mm.h
+++ b/xen/include/xen/mm.h
@@ -644,6 +644,9 @@ static inline void filtered_flush_tlb_ma
Hi,
On 5/31/19 10:49 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 31.05.19 at 11:42, wrote:
On 5/31/19 10:35 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
--- a/xen/include/xen/mm.h
+++ b/xen/include/xen/mm.h
@@ -644,6 +644,9 @@ static inline void filtered_flush_tlb_ma
/* Private domain structs for DOMID_XEN, DOMID_IO, etc. */
>>> On 31.05.19 at 11:42, wrote:
> On 5/31/19 10:35 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> --- a/xen/include/xen/mm.h
>> +++ b/xen/include/xen/mm.h
>> @@ -644,6 +644,9 @@ static inline void filtered_flush_tlb_ma
>>
>> /* Private domain structs for DOMID_XEN, DOMID_IO, etc. */
>> extern struct domain *do
Hi Jan,
On 5/31/19 10:35 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
A couple of adjustments are needed to code checking for dom_cow, but
since there are pretty few it is probably better to adjust those than
to set up and keep around a never used domain.
Take the opportunity and tighten a BUG_ON() in emul-priv-op.c
A couple of adjustments are needed to code checking for dom_cow, but
since there are pretty few it is probably better to adjust those than
to set up and keep around a never used domain.
Take the opportunity and tighten a BUG_ON() in emul-priv-op.c:read_cr().
(Arguably this perhaps shouldn't be a B
18 matches
Mail list logo
