| |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
xen-ia64-devel
RE: [Xen-ia64-devel] RE: PATCH: PAL_VM_SUMMARY and PAL_VM_INFO
Wondering if there will be yet another OS got para-virtualized to run on
Xen/IPF. Though supporting para-virtualized OS, we should continue to
maintain a "complete" and "minimal" architectural instead of creating
yet another legacy architecture. Or a new driver in XenLinux to take
advantage of this pkrs.
16pkrs would be necessary for architectural completeness.
-Fred
-----Original Message-----
From: xen-ia64-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:xen-ia64-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Magenheimer, Dan (HP Labs Fort Collins)
Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 1:26 PM
To: Williamson, Alex (Linux Kernel Dev)
Cc: xen-ia64-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Tristan Gingold
Subject: [Xen-ia64-devel] RE: PATCH: PAL_VM_SUMMARY and PAL_VM_INFO
> From: Williamson, Alex (Linux Kernel Dev)
> Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 2:06 PM
> To: Magenheimer, Dan (HP Labs Fort Collins)
> Cc: Tristan Gingold; xen-ia64-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: PATCH: PAL_VM_SUMMARY and PAL_VM_INFO
>
> On Thu, 2006-04-06 at 09:30 -0700, Magenheimer, Dan (HP Labs Fort
> Collins) wrote:
>
> > max_pkr should probably be zero for now (at least non-VT) since
> > pkr's are not implemented. Or would this be an "illegal" value
> > because of architectural definition.
>
> Looks like that could be considered illegal, the SDM says
> there are at
> least 16 PKRs.
Given that PKRs are currently unimplemented, returning
an illegal value (0) might be the right thing anyway.
Dan
_______________________________________________
Xen-ia64-devel mailing list
Xen-ia64-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-ia64-devel
_______________________________________________
Xen-ia64-devel mailing list
Xen-ia64-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-ia64-devel
|
|
|
| |
|
Home