search for: pgd_error

...6lx).\n", __FILE__, __LINE__, &(e), pte_val(e)) -#define pmd_ERROR(e) \ - printk("%s:%d: bad pmd %p(%016lx).\n", __FILE__, __LINE__, &(e), pmd_val(e)) -#define pud_ERROR(e) \ - printk("%s:%d: bad pud %p(%016lx).\n", __FILE__, __LINE__, &(e), pud_val(e)) -#define pgd_ERROR(e) \ - printk("%s:%d: bad pgd %p(%016lx).\n", __FILE__, __LINE__, &(e), pgd_val(e)) - -#define pgd_none(x) (!pgd_val(x)) -#define pud_none(x) (!pud_val(x)) +#ifdef CONFIG_PARAVIRT +#include <asm/paravirt.h> +#else +#define set_pte native_set_pte +#define set_pte_at(mm,addr,ptep,...

...6lx).\n", __FILE__, __LINE__, &(e), pte_val(e)) -#define pmd_ERROR(e) \ - printk("%s:%d: bad pmd %p(%016lx).\n", __FILE__, __LINE__, &(e), pmd_val(e)) -#define pud_ERROR(e) \ - printk("%s:%d: bad pud %p(%016lx).\n", __FILE__, __LINE__, &(e), pud_val(e)) -#define pgd_ERROR(e) \ - printk("%s:%d: bad pgd %p(%016lx).\n", __FILE__, __LINE__, &(e), pgd_val(e)) - -#define pgd_none(x) (!pgd_val(x)) -#define pud_none(x) (!pud_val(x)) +#ifdef CONFIG_PARAVIRT +#include <asm/paravirt.h> +#else +#define set_pte native_set_pte +#define set_pte_at(mm,addr,ptep,...

Hey folks, This is the part-of-pvops-implementation-that-is-not-exactly-a-merge. Neat, uh? This is the majority of the work. The first patch in the series does not really belong here. It was already sent to lkml separetedly before, but I'm including it again, for a very simple reason: Try to test the paravirt patches without it, and you'll fail miserably ;-) (and it was not yet

Hey folks, This is the part-of-pvops-implementation-that-is-not-exactly-a-merge. Neat, uh? This is the majority of the work. The first patch in the series does not really belong here. It was already sent to lkml separetedly before, but I'm including it again, for a very simple reason: Try to test the paravirt patches without it, and you'll fail miserably ;-) (and it was not yet

Here is an slightly updated version of the paravirt_ops patch. If your comments and criticism were welcome before, now it's even more! There are some issues that are _not_ addressed in this revision, and here are the causes: * split debugreg into multiple functions, suggested by Andi: - Me and jsfg agree that introducing more pvops (specially 14!) is not worthwhile. So, although we do

Here is an slightly updated version of the paravirt_ops patch. If your comments and criticism were welcome before, now it's even more! There are some issues that are _not_ addressed in this revision, and here are the causes: * split debugreg into multiple functions, suggested by Andi: - Me and jsfg agree that introducing more pvops (specially 14!) is not worthwhile. So, although we do

Hey folks, Here's a new spin of the pvops64 patch series. We didn't get that many comments from the last time, so it should be probably almost ready to get in. Heya! >From the last version, the most notable changes are: * consolidation of system.h, merging jeremy's comments about ordering concerns * consolidation of smp functions that goes through smp_ops. They're sharing

Hey folks, Here's a new spin of the pvops64 patch series. We didn't get that many comments from the last time, so it should be probably almost ready to get in. Heya! >From the last version, the most notable changes are: * consolidation of system.h, merging jeremy's comments about ordering concerns * consolidation of smp functions that goes through smp_ops. They're sharing

This is hopefully the last iteration of the pvops64 patch. >From the last version, we have only one change, which is include/asm-x86_64/processor.h: There were still one survivor in raw asm. Also, git screwed me up for some reason, and the 25th patch was missing the new files, paravirt.{c,h}. (although I do remember having git-add'ed it, but who knows...) Andrew, could you please push it

This is hopefully the last iteration of the pvops64 patch. >From the last version, we have only one change, which is include/asm-x86_64/processor.h: There were still one survivor in raw asm. Also, git screwed me up for some reason, and the 25th patch was missing the new files, paravirt.{c,h}. (although I do remember having git-add'ed it, but who knows...) Andrew, could you please push it

...6lx).\n", __FILE__, __LINE__, &(e), pte_val(e)) -#define pmd_ERROR(e) \ - printk("%s:%d: bad pmd %p(%016lx).\n", __FILE__, __LINE__, &(e), pmd_val(e)) -#define pud_ERROR(e) \ - printk("%s:%d: bad pud %p(%016lx).\n", __FILE__, __LINE__, &(e), pud_val(e)) -#define pgd_ERROR(e) \ - printk("%s:%d: bad pgd %p(%016lx).\n", __FILE__, __LINE__, &(e), pgd_val(e)) - -#define pgd_none(x) (!pgd_val(x)) -#define pud_none(x) (!pud_val(x)) -static inline void set_pte(pte_t *dst, pte_t val) +static inline void native_set_pte(pte_t *dst, pte_t val) { - pte_val(*dst)...

...6lx).\n", __FILE__, __LINE__, &(e), pte_val(e)) -#define pmd_ERROR(e) \ - printk("%s:%d: bad pmd %p(%016lx).\n", __FILE__, __LINE__, &(e), pmd_val(e)) -#define pud_ERROR(e) \ - printk("%s:%d: bad pud %p(%016lx).\n", __FILE__, __LINE__, &(e), pud_val(e)) -#define pgd_ERROR(e) \ - printk("%s:%d: bad pgd %p(%016lx).\n", __FILE__, __LINE__, &(e), pgd_val(e)) - -#define pgd_none(x) (!pgd_val(x)) -#define pud_none(x) (!pud_val(x)) -static inline void set_pte(pte_t *dst, pte_t val) +static inline void native_set_pte(pte_t *dst, pte_t val) { - pte_val(*dst)...

Chris Wright wrote: >* Zachary Amsden (zach@vmware.com) wrote: > > >>Does Xen assume page aligned descriptor tables? I assume from this >> >> > >Yes. > > > >>patch and snippets I have gathered from others, that is a yes, and other >>things here imply that DT pages are not shadowed. If so, Xen itself >>must have live segments

Chris Wright wrote: >* Zachary Amsden (zach@vmware.com) wrote: > > >>Does Xen assume page aligned descriptor tables? I assume from this >> >> > >Yes. > > > >>patch and snippets I have gathered from others, that is a yes, and other >>things here imply that DT pages are not shadowed. If so, Xen itself >>must have live segments

...6/pgtable-2level.h =================================================================== --- linux-2.6.16-rc5.orig/include/asm-i386/pgtable-2level.h 2006-03-10 12:55:05.000000000 -0800 +++ linux-2.6.16-rc5/include/asm-i386/pgtable-2level.h 2006-03-10 13:03:39.000000000 -0800 @@ -8,17 +8,6 @@ #define pgd_ERROR(e) \ printk("%s:%d: bad pgd %08lx.\n", __FILE__, __LINE__, pgd_val(e)) -/* - * Certain architectures need to do special things when PTEs - * within a page table are directly modified. Thus, the following - * hook is made available. - */ -#define set_pte(pteptr, pteval) (*(pteptr) = p...

...6/pgtable-2level.h =================================================================== --- linux-2.6.16-rc5.orig/include/asm-i386/pgtable-2level.h 2006-03-10 12:55:05.000000000 -0800 +++ linux-2.6.16-rc5/include/asm-i386/pgtable-2level.h 2006-03-10 13:03:39.000000000 -0800 @@ -8,17 +8,6 @@ #define pgd_ERROR(e) \ printk("%s:%d: bad pgd %08lx.\n", __FILE__, __LINE__, pgd_val(e)) -/* - * Certain architectures need to do special things when PTEs - * within a page table are directly modified. Thus, the following - * hook is made available. - */ -#define set_pte(pteptr, pteval) (*(pteptr) = p...

I''m sure everyone has seen the drop of VMI patches for Linux at this point, but just in case, the link is included below. I''ve read this version of the VMI spec and have made my way through most of the patches. While I wasn''t really that impressed with the first spec wrt Xen, the second version seems to be much more palatable. Specifically, the code inlining and