* Zachary Amsden <zach@vmware.com> wrote:

quoted text
> > 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

Index: linux/include/asm-x86/paravirt.h
===================================================================
--- linux.orig/include/asm-x86/paravirt.h
+++ linux/include/asm-x86/paravirt.h
@@ -619,6 +619,7 @@ static inline void write_cr4(unsigned lo
 	PVOP_VCALL1(pv_cpu_ops.write_cr4, x);
 }
 
+#ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
 static inline unsigned long read_cr8(void)
 {
 	return PVOP_CALL0(unsigned long, pv_cpu_ops.read_cr8);
@@ -628,6 +629,7 @@ static inline void write_cr8(unsigned lo
 {
 	PVOP_VCALL1(pv_cpu_ops.write_cr8, x);
 }
+#endif
 
 static inline void raw_safe_halt(void)
 {
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/