Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH]: kexec: framework and i386

[Akio Takebe <takebe_akio@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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