Andi Kleen wrote: > On Mon, Oct 30, 2006 at 12:54:55PM -0800, Zachary Amsden wrote: > >> Andi Kleen wrote: >> >>> no_timer_check. But it's only there on x86-64 in mainline - although there >>> were some patches to add it to i386 too. >>> >>> >> I can rename to match the x86-64 name. >> > > I will do that in my tree. > > >>>> That is what this patch is building towards, but the boot option is >>>> "free", so why not? In the meantime, it helps non-paravirt kernels >>>> booted in a VM. >>>> >>>> >>> Hmm, you meant they paniced before? If they just fail a few tests >>> that is not particularly worrying (real hardware does that often too) >>> >>> >> Yes, they sometimes fail to boot, and the failure message used to ask us >> to pester mingo. >> > > I still think we should figure that out automatically. Letting > the Hypervisor pass magic boot options seems somehow unclean. > > But i suppose it will only work for the paravirtualized case, > not for the case of kernel running "native" under a hypervisor > I suppose? Or does that one not panic? > That is the one that can panic, for now. Fixing the paravirtualized case is easy, but we can't assume paravirtualization just yet. Zach
