Sorry. A line is dropped. I attached corrected one.
The diff from the previous patch is as follows.
diff -r 7434ad24d10d -r e3f35a7989c3 arch/ia64/kernel/patch.c
--- a/arch/ia64/kernel/patch.c Thu Aug 02 21:30:04 2007 +0900
+++ b/arch/ia64/kernel/patch.c Thu Aug 02 22:09:38 2007 +0900
@@ -184,7 +184,7 @@ patch_brl_fsys_bubble_down (unsigned lon
ia64_srlz_i();
}
-#ifdef CONFIG_XEN_IA64_VDSO_PARAVIRT
+#ifdef CONFIG_XEN
void __init
ia64_patch_gate_xen (void)
{
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 01:58:42PM +0900, Isaku Yamahata wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 10:25:47AM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > This looks like a good idea, a few questions:
> >
> > * Is there still a need to keep the CONFIG_XEN_IA64_VDSO_PARAVIRT
> > sub config option? Would we actually support this not set, or
> > should we merge it into CONFIG_XEN?
> > * If I understand correctly, instead of creating a single, dynamic
> > bare metal/paravirt gate page, this is creating two static pages
> > and the appropriate one is installed once at boot. Is the other
> > one freed?
> > * The calculated padding using the .skip looks like a bit of a
> > maintenance issue (not that these files change often), could it
> > be calculated at build time?
>
> Thank you for comments. All of them are addressed.
> I attached the updated one.
>
>
> > * Does this simplify any aspect of the paravirt_alt proposal? I
> > don't think so, but I'd like to know your plans for that as
> > well.
>
> No.
>
> --
> yamahata
--
yamahata
164_40709179b073_xen_specific_gate_page.patch
Description: Text Data
_______________________________________________
Xen-ia64-devel mailing list
Xen-ia64-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-ia64-devel
|
Home