Displaying 8 results from an estimated 8 matches for "setup_64".
Did you mean:
setup64
2008 Feb 11
3
[PATCH 1/5] Change vsmp compile dependency
Change Makefile so vsmp_64.o object is dependent
on PARAVIRT, rather than X86_VSMP
Signed-off-by: Glauber Costa <gcosta@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Ravikiran Thirumalai <kiran@scalemp.com>
Acked-by: Shai Fultheim <shai@scalemp.com>
---
arch/x86/kernel/Makefile | 2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/Makefile
2007 Apr 18
8
[patch 0/6] i386 gdt and percpu cleanups
Hi Andi,
This is a series of patches based on your latest queue (as of the
other day, at least).
It includes:
- the most recent patch to compute the appropriate amount of percpu
space to allocate, using a separate reservation for modules where
needed.
- make the percpu sections page-aligned, so that percpu variables can
be page aligned if needed (which is used by gdt_page)
-
2007 Apr 18
8
[patch 0/6] i386 gdt and percpu cleanups
Hi Andi,
This is a series of patches based on your latest queue (as of the
other day, at least).
It includes:
- the most recent patch to compute the appropriate amount of percpu
space to allocate, using a separate reservation for modules where
needed.
- make the percpu sections page-aligned, so that percpu variables can
be page aligned if needed (which is used by gdt_page)
-
2007 Oct 31
5
[PATCH 0/7] (Re-)introducing pvops for x86_64 - Real pvops work part
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
2007 Oct 31
5
[PATCH 0/7] (Re-)introducing pvops for x86_64 - Real pvops work part
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
2007 Dec 04
10
[PATCH 0/10] Integrate msr.h
Hello,
This series of patches integrates msr.h header.
What it really does, is a series of steps to allow us
to get rid of duplicate code between i386 and x86_64 versions
With this done, achieving paravirt for x86_64 gets really easy,
just a couple of extra code.
The first patch was already sent a while ago, but was not yet pushed
to any tree , to my knowledge. So it is sent again. Also,
2007 Dec 04
10
[PATCH 0/10] Integrate msr.h
Hello,
This series of patches integrates msr.h header.
What it really does, is a series of steps to allow us
to get rid of duplicate code between i386 and x86_64 versions
With this done, achieving paravirt for x86_64 gets really easy,
just a couple of extra code.
The first patch was already sent a while ago, but was not yet pushed
to any tree , to my knowledge. So it is sent again. Also,
2006 Jul 26
5
linux-2.6-xen.hg
Hi,
Is the http://xenbits.xensource.com/linux-2.6-xen.hg tree still being
updated? if not, what''s the preferred Linux tree to track that has all
of the Xen bits?
Thanks,
Muli
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel