On Sat, 2007-04-28 at 00:40 -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Guys currently I am horrified by the ease at which I can find > bugs in the pending paravirtualization patches. I have barely > even looked at arch/i386 in the -mm tree and it feels like > I am tripping over significant bugs left and right. > > Because no one has heeded my advice and put in a proper platform > layer on arch/i386 and we are instead doing a half baked job > with paravirt_ops it is still trivially easy to miss the > fact that subarchitectures do something different, and thus > it is easy to miss when you break a sub architecture on > arch/i386. I got a bit tired of trying to be proactive. The last time was for the %gs per cpu thing, which I saw coming. The basic problem is that there's no well organised git tree I can pull from and bisect to trace problems. My strategy now is to wait for the merge window to close and then go around sweeping up the mess and yelling at the offenders ... it's what all the non-x86 architectures do, and it's definitely an easier process. > Not that the paravirtuailzation patches are even safe on the > primary arch/i386. > > To some extent I grant with major changes a little goofing up on > pending patches is to be expected, but it would be nice if > things were restructured to make it harder to miss the > subarchitectures on arch/i386. > > The patch known as x86_64-mm-use-per-cpu-gdt-immediately-upon-boot > on -mm currently breaks voyager smp support in some very obvious ways. > > Making init_gdt a function which is called from voyager_smp.c static > in smpboot.c a file that is not even used on voayger is an obvious > one. > > Adding start_pda and not setting it in voyager_smp is another. > > Rusty do you think you can address this? James _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
