On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 01:45:49PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 02/29/2012 01:31 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> > On 02/29/2012 01:25 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > It does not crash under valgrind :)
> > > But valgrid did show some info:
> > >
> > > ==9202== Invalid write of size 8
> > > ==9202==
On 02/29/2012 01:31 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 02/29/2012 01:25 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > It does not crash under valgrind :)
> > But valgrid did show some info:
> >
> > ==9202== Invalid write of size 8
> > ==9202==at 0x2F313D: portio_list_add_1 (ioport.c:379)
> >
>
> Anthony, your "bad
On 02/29/2012 01:25 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> It does not crash under valgrind :)
> But valgrid did show some info:
>
> ==9202== Invalid write of size 8
> ==9202==at 0x2F313D: portio_list_add_1 (ioport.c:379)
>
Anthony, your "bad bisect" was in fact good - it was the very first
patch tha
On 02/29/2012 12:53 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> I did get an abort with -enable-kvm, but that looks like the old issue,
> no? Looking into it.
>
>
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
>From 4fa865c7086e2f287c91f4372df6eb5ddf40a48c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Avi Kivity
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 12:53:50PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 02/29/2012 12:23 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 12:09:14PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> > > On 02/29/2012 12:58 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > >
> > > > What I did, to allow bisect, is rebase Avi's patche
On 02/29/2012 12:23 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 12:09:14PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> > On 02/29/2012 12:58 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > >
> > > What I did, to allow bisect, is rebase Avi's patches on top
> > > of my bridge implementation, then run qemu with a bridg
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 12:09:14PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 02/29/2012 12:58 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >
> > What I did, to allow bisect, is rebase Avi's patches on top
> > of my bridge implementation, then run qemu with a bridge.
> > bridge without Avi's patches at least starts booting,
On 02/29/2012 12:58 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>
> What I did, to allow bisect, is rebase Avi's patches on top
> of my bridge implementation, then run qemu with a bridge.
> bridge without Avi's patches at least starts booting, with
> Avi's patches crashes before guest start.
>
> If you want to p
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 01:20:47PM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 02/28/2012 01:17 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> >On 02/28/2012 09:14 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> >>On 02/28/2012 12:15 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> >>>On 02/28/2012 08:13 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>
> FWIW, I'm processing this PUL
On 02/28/2012 01:17 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 02/28/2012 09:14 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 02/28/2012 12:15 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 02/28/2012 08:13 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
FWIW, I'm processing this PULL request right now and I'm seeing a SEGV
too. The backtrace is a malloc failure in Q
On 02/28/2012 09:14 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 02/28/2012 12:15 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
>> On 02/28/2012 08:13 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>>>
>>> FWIW, I'm processing this PULL request right now and I'm seeing a SEGV
>>> too. The backtrace is a malloc failure in QOM.
>>>
>>
>> How do we reprodu
On 02/28/2012 12:15 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 02/28/2012 08:13 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
FWIW, I'm processing this PULL request right now and I'm seeing a SEGV
too. The backtrace is a malloc failure in QOM.
How do we reproduce this?
I don't trust this bisect completely, but here are the r
On 02/28/2012 12:15 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 02/28/2012 08:13 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
FWIW, I'm processing this PULL request right now and I'm seeing a SEGV
too. The backtrace is a malloc failure in QOM.
How do we reproduce this?
The guest never gets to run so I don't think the initrd/
On 02/28/2012 12:15 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 02/28/2012 08:13 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
FWIW, I'm processing this PULL request right now and I'm seeing a SEGV
too. The backtrace is a malloc failure in QOM.
How do we reproduce this?
It looks like just repeatedly running QEMU with a -devic
On 02/28/2012 08:13 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>
> FWIW, I'm processing this PULL request right now and I'm seeing a SEGV
> too. The backtrace is a malloc failure in QOM.
>
How do we reproduce this?
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
On 02/28/2012 11:59 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 02:25:42PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
[repost with pull info, brain not yet back up to speed]
This is the current memory queue (posted as two separate series before
my vacation). When applied, the overhead of 16 bytes/page
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 02:25:42PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> [repost with pull info, brain not yet back up to speed]
>
> This is the current memory queue (posted as two separate series before
> my vacation). When applied, the overhead of 16 bytes/page is reduced to
> basically nil.
>
> Please p
On 02/28/2012 02:25 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> [repost with pull info, brain not yet back up to speed]
>
> This is the current memory queue (posted as two separate series before
> my vacation). When applied, the overhead of 16 bytes/page is reduced to
> basically nil.
>
> Please pull from:
>
> git:
[repost with pull info, brain not yet back up to speed]
This is the current memory queue (posted as two separate series before
my vacation). When applied, the overhead of 16 bytes/page is reduced to
basically nil.
Please pull from:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/virt/kvm/qemu-kvm.git memory/cor
This is the current memory queue (posted as two separate series before
my vacation). When applied, the overhead of 16 bytes/page is reduced to
basically nil.
Avi Kivity (30):
ioport: change portio_list not to use memory_region
20 matches
Mail list logo
