WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-ia64-devel

Re: [Xen-ia64-devel] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 0/5][IA64][HVM] Windowscrash

To: Masaki Kanno <kanno.masaki@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-ia64-devel] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 0/5][IA64][HVM] Windowscrashdump support
From: Tristan Gingold <tgingold@xxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 17:32:53 +0100
Cc: Tristan Gingold <tgingold@xxxxxxx>, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xen-ia64-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivery-date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 08:28:47 -0800
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <76C73F0A472CC4kanno.masaki@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <61C73E97DDED6Akanno.masaki@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <C1DB727F.7A77%Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <20070123082550.GA2551@saphi> <76C73F0A472CC4kanno.masaki@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.9i
On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 01:19:37AM +0900, Masaki Kanno wrote:
[...]
> Hi Tristan,
> 
> Thanks for your comments. 
> 
> >Maybe os-init is not the best name.
> 
> Maybe os-init is not the best command name as you say. If you have idea 
> of command name, could you send it?
something like
xm trigger init|reset|nmi

> >Maybe the balance between code in hypervisor (very small) and code in xm
> >(larger) is not very good, but difficule to improve !
> 
> I examined oneself. I should have checked a target domain (HVM domain or 
> PV domain) in hypervisor. I will send the patch which moved the check of 
> target domain into hypervisor. Maybe not difficult to improve.
I think it is normal xm code is bigger than hypervisor.  But this makes x86
people not very happy!

BTW, it would be nice if the vcpu number could be specified!

Tristan.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>