Re: [Xen-ia64-devel] [PATCH][RFC] Introduce xen specific gate page.

[Isaku Yamahata <yamahata@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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

Attachment: 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