Hi,
Sorry for the late answer.
On 14/08/2020 10:25, Bertrand Marquis wrote:
On 1 Aug 2020, at 00:03, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jul 2020, Bertrand Marquis wrote:
On 31 Jul 2020, at 12:18, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 31.07.2020 12:12, Julien Grall wrote:
On 31/07/2020 07:39, Jan Beu
> On 1 Aug 2020, at 00:03, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>
> On Fri, 31 Jul 2020, Bertrand Marquis wrote:
>>> On 31 Jul 2020, at 12:18, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>
>>> On 31.07.2020 12:12, Julien Grall wrote:
On 31/07/2020 07:39, Jan Beulich wrote:
> We're fixing other issues without breakin
On Fri, 31 Jul 2020, Bertrand Marquis wrote:
> > On 31 Jul 2020, at 12:18, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >
> > On 31.07.2020 12:12, Julien Grall wrote:
> >> On 31/07/2020 07:39, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> We're fixing other issues without breaking the ABI. Where's the
> >>> problem of backporting the kernel
> On 31 Jul 2020, at 12:18, Jan Beulich wrote:
>
> On 31.07.2020 12:12, Julien Grall wrote:
>> On 31/07/2020 07:39, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> We're fixing other issues without breaking the ABI. Where's the
>>> problem of backporting the kernel side change (which I anticipate
>>> to not be overly
On 31.07.2020 12:12, Julien Grall wrote:
> On 31/07/2020 07:39, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> We're fixing other issues without breaking the ABI. Where's the
>> problem of backporting the kernel side change (which I anticipate
>> to not be overly involved)?
> This means you can't take advantage of the runs
Hi Jan,
On 31/07/2020 07:39, Jan Beulich wrote:
We're fixing other issues without breaking the ABI. Where's the
problem of backporting the kernel side change (which I anticipate
to not be overly involved)?
This means you can't take advantage of the runstage on existing Linux
without any modific
On 30.07.2020 03:30, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jul 2020, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 29.07.2020 09:08, Bertrand Marquis wrote:
On 28 Jul 2020, at 21:54, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 28.07.2020 17:52, Bertrand Marquis wrote:
> At the moment on Arm, a Linux guest running with KTPI e
On Wed, 29 Jul 2020, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 29.07.2020 09:08, Bertrand Marquis wrote:
> > > On 28 Jul 2020, at 21:54, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > >
> > > On 28.07.2020 17:52, Bertrand Marquis wrote:
> > > > At the moment on Arm, a Linux guest running with KTPI enabled will
> > > > cause the following
On 29.07.2020 09:08, Bertrand Marquis wrote:
On 28 Jul 2020, at 21:54, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 28.07.2020 17:52, Bertrand Marquis wrote:
At the moment on Arm, a Linux guest running with KTPI enabled will
cause the following error when a context switch happens in user mode:
(XEN) p2m.c:1890: d
> On 28 Jul 2020, at 21:54, Jan Beulich wrote:
>
> On 28.07.2020 17:52, Bertrand Marquis wrote:
>> At the moment on Arm, a Linux guest running with KTPI enabled will
>> cause the following error when a context switch happens in user mode:
>> (XEN) p2m.c:1890: d1v0: Failed to walk page-table va
> On 28 Jul 2020, at 21:04, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>
> On Tue, 28 Jul 2020, Bertrand Marquis wrote:
>> At the moment on Arm, a Linux guest running with KTPI enabled will
>> cause the following error when a context switch happens in user mode:
>> (XEN) p2m.c:1890: d1v0: Failed to walk page-t
On 28.07.2020 17:52, Bertrand Marquis wrote:
At the moment on Arm, a Linux guest running with KTPI enabled will
cause the following error when a context switch happens in user mode:
(XEN) p2m.c:1890: d1v0: Failed to walk page-table va 0xff837ebe0cd0
The error is caused by the virtual address
On Tue, 28 Jul 2020, Bertrand Marquis wrote:
> At the moment on Arm, a Linux guest running with KTPI enabled will
> cause the following error when a context switch happens in user mode:
> (XEN) p2m.c:1890: d1v0: Failed to walk page-table va 0xff837ebe0cd0
>
> The error is caused by the virtual
13 matches
Mail list logo
