* Glauber de Oliveira Costa <glommer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Jan 18, 2008 8:02 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > * Zachary Amsden <zach@xxxxxxxxxx> 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 > > > Other than this, it seems to build and boot fine. > > Do you want me to resend ? no, this was the only small problem i found, your series looks good to me and is included in latest x86.git. Ingo _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
