Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1764418AbYARWDV (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Jan 2008 17:03:21 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1760707AbYARWDK (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Jan 2008 17:03:10 -0500 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:42643 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759132AbYARWDI (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Jan 2008 17:03:08 -0500 Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 23:02:00 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Zachary Amsden Cc: Glauber de Oliveira Costa , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, glommer@gmail.com, tglx@linutronix.de, ehabkost@redhat.com, jeremy@goop.org, avi@qumranet.com, anthony@codemonkey.ws, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, rusty@rustcorp.com.au, ak@suse.de, chrisw@sous-sol.org, rostedt@goodmis.org, hpa@zytor.com, roland@redhat.com, mtosatti@redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/10] Tree fixes for PARAVIRT Message-ID: <20080118220200.GA1071@elte.hu> References: <12006768251548-git-send-email-gcosta@redhat.com> <20080118203259.GA3079@elte.hu> <20080118213711.GA24979@elte.hu> <1200693248.21817.157.camel@bodhitayantram.eng.vmware.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1200693248.21817.157.camel@bodhitayantram.eng.vmware.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1561 Lines: 45 * Zachary Amsden wrote: > > but in exchange you broke all of 32-bit with CONFIG_PARAVIRT=y. > > Which means you did not even build-test it on 32-bit, let alone boot > > test it... > > Why are we rushing so much to do 64-bit paravirt that we are breaking > working configurations? If the developement is going to be this > chaotic, it should be done and tested out of tree until it can > stabilize. what you see is a open feedback cycle conducted on lkml. People send patches for arch/x86, and we tell them if it breaks something. The bug was found before i pushed out the x86.git devel tree (and the fix is below - but this shouldnt matter to you because the bug never hit a public x86.git tree). Ingo Index: linux/include/asm-x86/paravirt.h =================================================================== --- linux.orig/include/asm-x86/paravirt.h +++ linux/include/asm-x86/paravirt.h @@ -619,6 +619,7 @@ static inline void write_cr4(unsigned lo PVOP_VCALL1(pv_cpu_ops.write_cr4, x); } +#ifdef CONFIG_X86_64 static inline unsigned long read_cr8(void) { return PVOP_CALL0(unsigned long, pv_cpu_ops.read_cr8); @@ -628,6 +629,7 @@ static inline void write_cr8(unsigned lo { PVOP_VCALL1(pv_cpu_ops.write_cr8, x); } +#endif static inline void raw_safe_halt(void) { -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/