On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 04:57:02PM +0200, Martin Lucina wrote:
> On Wednesday, 27.05.2020 at 16:41, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> > > > > If I make this simple change:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- a/bindings/xen/boot.S
> > > > > +++ b/bindings/xen/boot.S
> > > > > @@ -32,7 +32,7 @@
> > > > > #define ENTRY(
On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 10:00:08AM +0200, Martin Lucina wrote:
> On Tuesday, 26.05.2020 at 18:30, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> > > Turns out that the .note.solo5.xen section as defined in boot.S was not
> > > marked allocatable, and that was doing that was confusing our
> > > linker script[1] (?).
> >
On Wednesday, 27.05.2020 at 16:41, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> > > > If I make this simple change:
> > > >
> > > > --- a/bindings/xen/boot.S
> > > > +++ b/bindings/xen/boot.S
> > > > @@ -32,7 +32,7 @@
> > > > #define ENTRY(x) .text; .globl x; .type x,%function; x:
> > > > #define END(x) .size x,
On Tuesday, 26.05.2020 at 18:30, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> > Turns out that the .note.solo5.xen section as defined in boot.S was not
> > marked allocatable, and that was doing that was confusing our
> > linker script[1] (?).
>
> Hm, I would have said there was no need to load notes into memory, an
On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 05:42:24PM +0200, Martin Lucina wrote:
> Oh! I think I've found a solution, even though I don't entirely understand the
> problem/root cause:
>
> On Tuesday, 26.05.2020 at 12:12, Martin Lucina wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 11:34:21AM +0200, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> >
Oh! I think I've found a solution, even though I don't entirely understand the
problem/root cause:
On Tuesday, 26.05.2020 at 12:12, Martin Lucina wrote:
> > On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 11:34:21AM +0200, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> > Forgot to ask, but can you also add the output of readelf -lW
> > ?
>
>
On Tuesday, 26.05.2020 at 13:42, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 26/05/2020 13:41, Martin Lucina wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 26.05.2020 at 12:58, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> >> On 26/05/2020 12:54, Martin Lucina wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, 26.05.2020 at 11:58, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 26/05/2020 09:52, Martin L
On 26/05/2020 13:41, Martin Lucina wrote:
> On Tuesday, 26.05.2020 at 12:58, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> On 26/05/2020 12:54, Martin Lucina wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 26.05.2020 at 11:58, Andrew Cooper wrote:
On 26/05/2020 09:52, Martin Lucina wrote:
> On Monday, 25.05.2020 at 17:59, Andrew Cooper
On Tuesday, 26.05.2020 at 12:58, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 26/05/2020 12:54, Martin Lucina wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 26.05.2020 at 11:58, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> >> On 26/05/2020 09:52, Martin Lucina wrote:
> >>> On Monday, 25.05.2020 at 17:59, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 25/05/2020 17:42, Jürgen Gr
On 26/05/2020 12:54, Martin Lucina wrote:
> On Tuesday, 26.05.2020 at 11:58, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> On 26/05/2020 09:52, Martin Lucina wrote:
>>> On Monday, 25.05.2020 at 17:59, Andrew Cooper wrote:
On 25/05/2020 17:42, Jürgen Groß wrote:
> You need to setup virtual addressing and enable
On Tuesday, 26.05.2020 at 11:58, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 26/05/2020 09:52, Martin Lucina wrote:
> > On Monday, 25.05.2020 at 17:59, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> >> On 25/05/2020 17:42, Jürgen Groß wrote:
> >>> You need to setup virtual addressing and enable 64 bit mode before using
> >>> 64-bit GDT.
>
On 26/05/2020 09:52, Martin Lucina wrote:
> On Monday, 25.05.2020 at 17:59, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> On 25/05/2020 17:42, Jürgen Groß wrote:
>>> You need to setup virtual addressing and enable 64 bit mode before using
>>> 64-bit GDT.
>>>
>>> See Mini-OS source arch/x86/x86_hvm.S
>> Or
>> https://xen
BTW, not sure why but my MUA (Mutt 11.0.3) seems to add everyone on Cc
to the To: field on reply, and drops your email address from the list.
I don't see a 'Reply-to:' on the headers, so I'm not sure why it does
that, but you might want to check your config.
I have to manually fix the headers to p
On Tuesday, 26.05.2020 at 12:03, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 11:34:21AM +0200, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> > On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 10:52:21AM +0200, Martin Lucina wrote:
> > > On Monday, 25.05.2020 at 17:59, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> > > > On 25/05/2020 17:42, Jürgen Groß wrote:
>
On Tuesday, 26.05.2020 at 11:34, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 10:52:21AM +0200, Martin Lucina wrote:
> > On Monday, 25.05.2020 at 17:59, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> > > On 25/05/2020 17:42, Jürgen Groß wrote:
> > > > You need to setup virtual addressing and enable 64 bit mode before
On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 11:34:21AM +0200, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 10:52:21AM +0200, Martin Lucina wrote:
> > On Monday, 25.05.2020 at 17:59, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> > > On 25/05/2020 17:42, Jürgen Groß wrote:
> > > > You need to setup virtual addressing and enable 64 bit mod
On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 10:52:21AM +0200, Martin Lucina wrote:
> On Monday, 25.05.2020 at 17:59, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> > On 25/05/2020 17:42, Jürgen Groß wrote:
> > > You need to setup virtual addressing and enable 64 bit mode before using
> > > 64-bit GDT.
> > >
> > > See Mini-OS source arch/x86/
On Monday, 25.05.2020 at 17:59, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 25/05/2020 17:42, Jürgen Groß wrote:
> > You need to setup virtual addressing and enable 64 bit mode before using
> > 64-bit GDT.
> >
> > See Mini-OS source arch/x86/x86_hvm.S
>
> Or
> https://xenbits.xen.org/gitweb/?p=people/andrewcoop/xen
On Monday, 25.05.2020 at 18:41, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 25/05/2020 17:04, Martin Lucina wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm trying to bootstrap a new PVH-only Xen domU OS "from scratch", to
> > replace our existing use of Mini-OS for the early boot/low-level support
> > layer in MirageOS. I've done this b
On 25/05/2020 17:04, Martin Lucina wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm trying to bootstrap a new PVH-only Xen domU OS "from scratch", to
> replace our existing use of Mini-OS for the early boot/low-level support
> layer in MirageOS. I've done this by creating new Xen bindings for Solo5
> [1], basing them on our e
On 25/05/2020 17:42, Jürgen Groß wrote:
> On 25.05.20 18:04, Martin Lucina wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm trying to bootstrap a new PVH-only Xen domU OS "from scratch", to
>> replace our existing use of Mini-OS for the early boot/low-level support
>> layer in MirageOS. I've done this by creating new Xen b
On 25.05.20 18:04, Martin Lucina wrote:
Hi,
I'm trying to bootstrap a new PVH-only Xen domU OS "from scratch", to
replace our existing use of Mini-OS for the early boot/low-level support
layer in MirageOS. I've done this by creating new Xen bindings for Solo5
[1], basing them on our existing vir
22 matches
Mail list logo