[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Xen-devel] Re: [patch 13/26] Xen-paravirt_ops: Consistently wrap paravirt ops callsites to make them patchable
- To: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx>
- From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 10:27:00 -0700 (PDT)
- Cc: jeremy@xxxxxxxx, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, mingo@xxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, jbeulich@xxxxxxxxxx, virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, chrisw@xxxxxxxxxxxx, virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, anthony@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, David Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Delivery-date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 02:25:18 -0700
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
On Tue, 20 Mar 2007, Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> The code never did that. In fact many of the problems we had initially
> especially came out of that -- the fallback code that would handle
> this case wasn't fully correct.
I don't keep my emails any more, but you *never* fixed the problems in
arch/*/kernel/traps.c.
Yes, the kernel/unwind.c issues generally got fixed. The infinite loops in
the *callers* never did.
> Also frankly often your analysis about what went wrong was just
> incorrect.
Still in denial, I see.
Do you still claim that "the fallback position always did the right
thing"? Despite the fact that the unwinder had sometimes *corrupted* the
incoming information so much that the fallback position was the one that
oopsed? And no, you didn't fix that.
And no, IT DID NOT use probe_kernel_address like you still claim.
Anyway, you work for Suse, I don't care what you do to the Suse kernel.
Maybe it will get stable some day. Somehow, I doubt it.
Linus
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
