similar to: [PATCH 0/3] Unify segment headers

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

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

In-Reply-To: <20060803002518.190834642@xensource.com> On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 17:25:13 -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > We allow for the fact that the guest kernel may not run in ring 0. > This requires some abstraction in a few places when setting %cs or > checking privilege level (user vs kernel). I made some changes: a. Added some comments about the SEGMENT_IS_*_CODE() macros.

In-Reply-To: <20060803002518.190834642@xensource.com> On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 17:25:13 -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > We allow for the fact that the guest kernel may not run in ring 0. > This requires some abstraction in a few places when setting %cs or > checking privilege level (user vs kernel). I made some changes: a. Added some comments about the SEGMENT_IS_*_CODE() macros.

Clean up of patch for letting kernel run other than ring 0: a. Add some comments about the SEGMENT_IS_*_CODE() macros. b. Add a USER_RPL macro. (Code was comparing a value to a mask in some places and to the magic number 3 in other places.) c. Add macros for table indicator field and use them. d. Change the entry.S tests for LDT stack segment to use the macros. Signed-off-by: Chuck Ebbert

Clean up of patch for letting kernel run other than ring 0: a. Add some comments about the SEGMENT_IS_*_CODE() macros. b. Add a USER_RPL macro. (Code was comparing a value to a mask in some places and to the magic number 3 in other places.) c. Add macros for table indicator field and use them. d. Change the entry.S tests for LDT stack segment to use the macros. Signed-off-by: Chuck Ebbert

This version over last version: (1) Gets rid of the no_paravirt.h header and leaves native ops in place (with some reshuffling to keep then under one #ifdef). (2) Fixes the "X crashes with CONFIG_PARAVIRT=y" bug. (3) Puts __ex_table entry in paravirt iret. Another followup patch implements binary patching... Rusty. === Create a paravirt.h header for all the critical operations which

This version over last version: (1) Gets rid of the no_paravirt.h header and leaves native ops in place (with some reshuffling to keep then under one #ifdef). (2) Fixes the "X crashes with CONFIG_PARAVIRT=y" bug. (3) Puts __ex_table entry in paravirt iret. Another followup patch implements binary patching... Rusty. === Create a paravirt.h header for all the critical operations which

This is a new version of the unified lguest launcher that applies to the current tree. According to rusty's suggestion, I'm bothering less to be able to load 32 bit kernels on 64-bit machines: changing the launcher for such case would be the easy part! In the absence of further objections, I'll commit it. Signed-off-by: Glauber de Oliveira Costa <gcosta@redhat.com> -- =

This is a new version of the unified lguest launcher that applies to the current tree. According to rusty's suggestion, I'm bothering less to be able to load 32 bit kernels on 64-bit machines: changing the launcher for such case would be the easy part! In the absence of further objections, I'll commit it. Signed-off-by: Glauber de Oliveira Costa <gcosta@redhat.com> -- =

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

Hi, This series corresponds do older patches in the paravirt series that was neither already applied, nor I will touch again. In general, they do not touch code that can be unified (at least, without being the unification a big problem on its own). They passed through this list a lot of times, so I feel them ready for inclusion, unless someone opposes. As with the other patches, they apply to

Hi, This series corresponds do older patches in the paravirt series that was neither already applied, nor I will touch again. In general, they do not touch code that can be unified (at least, without being the unification a big problem on its own). They passed through this list a lot of times, so I feel them ready for inclusion, unless someone opposes. As with the other patches, they apply to

Right now, I have lguest in-tree module compiling on x86_64. It's not yet on a sendable state, since the module itself isn't loading. However, this subset of the series is pretty straightforward, and I'm sending it now aiming at reducing the delta size in the future ;-) Have fun,

Right now, I have lguest in-tree module compiling on x86_64. It's not yet on a sendable state, since the module itself isn't loading. However, this subset of the series is pretty straightforward, and I'm sending it now aiming at reducing the delta size in the future ;-) Have fun,

Hi, We have three machines (server-A and server-B and client) and mounted server-A (6GB) and Server-B(6GB) under client (/mnt/) as 12GB with unify option. Then we have stopped glusterfs on Server-A.Now client side df command shows 6GB. Now,while trying to create files under /mnt produces this error message "Transport endpoint is not connected" Server-A is still down - Is it possible

If I understand correctly, the Linux kernel has a function printk() designed for most printing functions where a string prefix determines where the message is seen. Would something like this be useful in Syslinux? As I see it, there's essentially 3 separate printing methods with an additional variation. Goals: - To keep data size smaller, avoid 2+ identical static strings (akin to {

Genec, your approach is also very insteresting, but I would like to present an alternative which will basically works with three priority states. ALTERNATIVE APPROACH: FILTER AND PRIORITIES ON PRINT. ----- Detail: Lower the priority number higher the importance of the message. ----- - default priority level: * Messages without a prefix will *always* take this priority level. ----- - debug