similar to: Paravirt ops 64 bit git tree

Hi, This small series provides some more fixes towards the goal to have the PARAVIRT selectable for x86_64. After that, just some more small steps are needed. The first fix is not even specific for PARAVIRT, and it's actually preventing the whole tree from booting.

Hi, This small series provides some more fixes towards the goal to have the PARAVIRT selectable for x86_64. After that, just some more small steps are needed. The first fix is not even specific for PARAVIRT, and it's actually preventing the whole tree from booting.

Hi Nadav, Thank you for the patch! Yet something to improve: [auto build test ERROR on linus/master] [also build test ERROR on v4.18-rc1 next-20180619] [cannot apply to tip/x86/core] [if your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, please drop us a note to help improve the system] url:

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

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

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

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

Hi folks, With this series, the bulk of the work of pvops64 is done. Here, I integrate most of the paravirt.c and paravirt.h files, making them applicable to both architectures. CONFIG_PARAVIRT is _not_ present yet. Basically, this code is missing page table integration (patches currently being worked on by Jeremy). Enjoy

Hi folks, With this series, the bulk of the work of pvops64 is done. Here, I integrate most of the paravirt.c and paravirt.h files, making them applicable to both architectures. CONFIG_PARAVIRT is _not_ present yet. Basically, this code is missing page table integration (patches currently being worked on by Jeremy). Enjoy

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

On 14/11/17 12:43, Quan Xu wrote: > > > On 2017/11/14 18:27, Juergen Gross wrote: >> On 14/11/17 10:38, Quan Xu wrote: >>> >>> On 2017/11/14 15:30, Juergen Gross wrote: >>>> On 14/11/17 08:02, Quan Xu wrote: >>>>> On 2017/11/13 18:53, Juergen Gross wrote: >>>>>> On 13/11/17 11:06, Quan Xu wrote:

On 14/11/17 08:02, Quan Xu wrote: > > > On 2017/11/13 18:53, Juergen Gross wrote: >> On 13/11/17 11:06, Quan Xu wrote: >>> From: Quan Xu <quan.xu0 at gmail.com> >>> >>> So far, pv_idle_ops.poll is the only ops for pv_idle. .poll is called >>> in idle path which will poll for a while before we enter the real idle >>> state.

On 14/11/17 10:38, Quan Xu wrote: > > > On 2017/11/14 15:30, Juergen Gross wrote: >> On 14/11/17 08:02, Quan Xu wrote: >>> >>> On 2017/11/13 18:53, Juergen Gross wrote: >>>> On 13/11/17 11:06, Quan Xu wrote: >>>>> From: Quan Xu <quan.xu0 at gmail.com> >>>>> >>>>> So far, pv_idle_ops.poll is the only

On 2017/11/14 18:27, Juergen Gross wrote: > On 14/11/17 10:38, Quan Xu wrote: >> >> On 2017/11/14 15:30, Juergen Gross wrote: >>> On 14/11/17 08:02, Quan Xu wrote: >>>> On 2017/11/13 18:53, Juergen Gross wrote: >>>>> On 13/11/17 11:06, Quan Xu wrote: >>>>>> From: Quan Xu <quan.xu0 at gmail.com> >>>>>>

On 2017/11/14 18:27, Juergen Gross wrote: > On 14/11/17 10:38, Quan Xu wrote: >> >> On 2017/11/14 15:30, Juergen Gross wrote: >>> On 14/11/17 08:02, Quan Xu wrote: >>>> On 2017/11/13 18:53, Juergen Gross wrote: >>>>> On 13/11/17 11:06, Quan Xu wrote: >>>>>> From: Quan Xu <quan.xu0 at gmail.com> >>>>>>