xen-devel
Re: [PATCH] Re: tmem on 4.1 (was [Xen-devel] Re: Freeze schedule)
On Thu, 2011-01-20 at 10:04 +0000, Jan Beulich wrote:
>
>
> Since the 2.6.32 XCP kernel is derived from ours and
> nothing in the patch queue there removes the tmem bits
> afaict, it ought to be affected as much.
Neither CONFIG_PRECACHE nor CONFIG_PRESWAP are enabled in the XCP kernel
configuration and hence CONFIG_TMEM is not selected.
Ian.
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- RE: tmem on 4.1 (was [Xen-devel] Re: Freeze schedule), (continued)
- RE: tmem on 4.1 (was [Xen-devel] Re: Freeze schedule), Dan Magenheimer
- RE: tmem on 4.1 (was [Xen-devel] Re: Freeze schedule), Jan Beulich
- [PATCH] Re: tmem on 4.1 (was [Xen-devel] Re: Freeze schedule), Tim Deegan
- RE: [PATCH] Re: tmem on 4.1 (was [Xen-devel] Re: Freeze schedule), Dan Magenheimer
- Re: [PATCH] Re: tmem on 4.1 (was [Xen-devel] Re: Freeze schedule), Sander Eikelenboom
- Re: [PATCH] Re: tmem on 4.1 (was [Xen-devel] Re: Freeze schedule), Keir Fraser
- Re: [PATCH] Re: tmem on 4.1 (was [Xen-devel] Re: Freeze schedule), Olivier B.
- Re: [PATCH] Re: tmem on 4.1 (was [Xen-devel] Re: Freeze schedule), Ian Campbell
- Re: [PATCH] Re: tmem on 4.1 (was [Xen-devel] Re: Freeze schedule), Olivier B.
- Re: [PATCH] Re: tmem on 4.1 (was [Xen-devel] Re: Freeze schedule), Jan Beulich
- Re: [PATCH] Re: tmem on 4.1 (was [Xen-devel] Re: Freeze schedule),
Ian Campbell <=
- Re: [PATCH] Re: tmem on 4.1 (was [Xen-devel] Re: Freeze schedule), Ian Jackson
- Re: [PATCH] Re: tmem on 4.1 (was [Xen-devel] Re: Freeze schedule), Tim Deegan
- RE: [PATCH] Re: tmem on 4.1 (was [Xen-devel] Re: Freeze schedule), Dan Magenheimer
|
|
|