| |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
xen-devel
Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH]: kexec: framework and i386
Hi, Horms and Mark
This is good work!
It is very necessary for debugging hypervisor or domain0.
I'm not clear at some points.
1. Is this feature available on uni-processor machine?
2. Could you explain more detail usage?
Mark, what do you think about this kdump implementation?
Best Regards,
Akio Takebe
>On Wed, Apr 12, 2006 at 06:12:30PM +0900, Horms wrote:
>>
>> kexec: framework and i386
>
>[snip]
>
>> * This patch was prepared against xen-unstable.hg 9514
>> As of today (9574) two new hypercalls have been added.
>> I rediffed and moved the kexec hypercall to 33. However
>> this exceedes hypercall_NR, which is currently 32.
>> I tried increasing this, but the dom0 now crashes
>> in entry.S on init. Even after rebuilding both xen and the kernel
>> completely from scratch after a make distclean. Help!!
>
>Hi,
>
>I am a bit concerned that this patch is going to start rotting if I
>can't at least track the current xen-unstable.hg, or better still get it
>merged.
>
>I would really appreciate it if someone could take moments to comment on
>the hypercall problem. Is adding a new hypercall, as the current patch
>does, the best way? If so could someone point me to how to increase the
>hypercall table size. If not, is it best to piggyback of the dom0_op
>hypercall? Or is there some other prefered option?
>
>--
>Horms
>
>_______________________________________________
>Xen-devel mailing list
>Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
|
|
| |
|
Home