similar to: Re: Questions on how to reset ID numbers for virt Guests.

On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 09:47:07AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > Il 11/09/2013 00:27, James Sparenberg ha scritto: > > I'm doing some experimenting in our Development lab and as a result > > I'm kickstarting over and over Virtual guests. This is of course > > causing the guest Id to increment by one with each test. I've > > googled around and tried

On 28/08/20 14:21, Matej Genci wrote: > VirtIO 1.0 spec says > The removed and rescan events ... when sent for LUN 0, they MAY > apply to the entire target so the driver can ask the initiator > to rescan the target to detect this. > > This change introduces the behaviour described above by scanning the > entire scsi target when LUN is set to 0. This is both a

On 28/08/20 14:21, Matej Genci wrote: > VirtIO 1.0 spec says > The removed and rescan events ... when sent for LUN 0, they MAY > apply to the entire target so the driver can ask the initiator > to rescan the target to detect this. > > This change introduces the behaviour described above by scanning the > entire scsi target when LUN is set to 0. This is both a

On Aug 22, 2008, at 9:30 AM, Vikram S. Adve wrote: > In the general case, I think you have to be conservative about this > because programmers may deliberately want this kind of "wraparound" > behavior, e.g., with periodic boundary conditions. But 99.9% of > programs probably don't need that so it would be bad to penalize them > for this corner case. In such a

On 06/07/2016 14:08, Wanpeng Li wrote: > 2016-07-06 18:44 GMT+08:00 Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini at redhat.com>: >> >> >> On 06/07/2016 08:52, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >>> On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 10:43:07AM -0400, Pan Xinhui wrote: >>>> change fomr v1: >>>> a simplier definition of default vcpu_is_preempted >>>> skip mahcine

On 06/07/2016 14:08, Wanpeng Li wrote: > 2016-07-06 18:44 GMT+08:00 Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini at redhat.com>: >> >> >> On 06/07/2016 08:52, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >>> On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 10:43:07AM -0400, Pan Xinhui wrote: >>>> change fomr v1: >>>> a simplier definition of default vcpu_is_preempted >>>> skip mahcine

On Aug 22, 2008, at 9:34 AMPDT, Chris Lattner wrote: > > On Aug 22, 2008, at 9:30 AM, Vikram S. Adve wrote: > >> In the general case, I think you have to be conservative about this >> because programmers may deliberately want this kind of "wraparound" >> behavior, e.g., with periodic boundary conditions. But 99.9% of >> programs probably don't need

On 06/07/2016 08:52, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 10:43:07AM -0400, Pan Xinhui wrote: >> change fomr v1: >> a simplier definition of default vcpu_is_preempted >> skip mahcine type check on ppc, and add config. remove dedicated macro. >> add one patch to drop overload of rwsem_spin_on_owner and mutex_spin_on_owner. >> add more comments

On 06/07/2016 08:52, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 10:43:07AM -0400, Pan Xinhui wrote: >> change fomr v1: >> a simplier definition of default vcpu_is_preempted >> skip mahcine type check on ppc, and add config. remove dedicated macro. >> add one patch to drop overload of rwsem_spin_on_owner and mutex_spin_on_owner. >> add more comments

>However, there is one issue I have ignored - possibility of overflow in >the index expression. Suppose, we have such a loop: > for (i8 i = 0; i != 200; ++i) { > A[2 * i + 5] = ... > ... = A[2 * i + 3] > } >If both index expressions are evaluated in 8-bit arithmetic, >then the dependence equation should be solved in modular arithmetic: > 2 * i + 5 == 2 * (i +

No idea why this happens: index-parse.y: In function 'yyparse': index-parse.c:1256:6: error: assuming pointer wraparound does not occur when comparing P +- C1 with P +- C2 [-Werror=strict-overflow] if (yyss + yystacksize - 1 <= yyssp) ^ It only happens on one machine, and not on any others, even though they have similar versions of gcc and bison installed. Rich. -- Richard

In the general case, I think you have to be conservative about this because programmers may deliberately want this kind of "wraparound" behavior, e.g., with periodic boundary conditions. But 99.9% of programs probably don't need that so it would be bad to penalize them for this corner case. In such a situation, I think you just have to support both choices, but choose the

Am Di., 11. Juni 2019 um 11:45 Uhr schrieb Zachary Turner via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>: > > I'm personally against changing everything to signed integers. To me, this is an example of making code strictly less readable and more confusing in order to fight deficiencies in the language standard. I get the problem that it's solving, but I view this as mostly a

On Aug 22, 2008, at 9:53 AM, Dale Johannesen wrote: >> >> C has a way to express this: signed integers are defined to never >> overflow, > > More precisely, signed integer overflow is undefined behavior, which > gives the compiler great latitude. > Assuming this will never happen and doing optimizations on that basis > is valid, but so are other things. > An

Hello everybody, I want to solve the following problem with Shorewall: I have a computer with one NIC (eth0) with an internal IP address (10.1.x.x), which is supposed to accept connections from various clients (10.2.x.x) and redirect them to another IP address (10.3.x.x) with a different destination port. For example: The software on the client computer is told to connect to the Shorewall

A missing u64 cast causes a 32-Bit wraparound from 4096 MiB to 0 MiB and therefore total 0 MiB VRAM detected if card has 4096 Mib per FBP. Signed-off-by: Mario Kleiner <mario.kleiner.de at gmail.com> --- drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/subdev/fb/ramgf100.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/subdev/fb/ramgf100.c

This fixes a regression introduced by "drm/nouveau: rework to new fence interface" (commit 29ba89b2371d466). The fence sequence should not be reset after creation, the old value is used instead. On destruction the final value is written, to prevent another source of accidental wraparound in case of a channel being destroyed after a hang, and unblocking any other channel that may wait on

I've been playing around with LLVM to write a backend for a rather "simple" (co-)processor. Assume that only three arithmetic instructions exist: ADD mod N, SUB mod N and MUL mod N. The modulus N is programmable and stored in a register. No ordinary arithmetic instructions are available. The word size is 256-bit. In other words, the following function, b + c mod N, corresponds to

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi All, We just experienced a very strange problem with Xen, and I''m wondering if anyone else has experienced it. We have a single host with three domUs - one is HVM, and the other two are paravirt. The HVM is a production environment, the paravirt are for demo/devel. I stopped the devel domU, and when I restarted it, the HVM stopped

Il 17/06/2014 17:50, Ming Lei ha scritto: >> > It would be nice to allocate virtqueues dynamically instead of >> > hardcoding the limit. virtio-scsi also allocates virtqueues >> > dynamically. > virtio-scsi may have lots of LUN, but virtio-blk only has one disk > which needn't lots of hardware queues. If you want to do queue steering based on the guest VCPU