Re: [PATCH 1/5] Skip timer works.patch
From: Andi Kleen
Date: Mon Oct 30 2006 - 17:50:39 EST
On Mon, Oct 30, 2006 at 12:54:55PM -0800, Zachary Amsden wrote:
> Andi Kleen wrote:
> >no_timer_check. But it's only there on x86-64 in mainline - although there
> >were some patches to add it to i386 too.
> I can rename to match the x86-64 name.
I will do that in my tree.
> >>That is what this patch is building towards, but the boot option is
> >>"free", so why not? In the meantime, it helps non-paravirt kernels
> >>booted in a VM.
> >Hmm, you meant they paniced before? If they just fail a few tests
> >that is not particularly worrying (real hardware does that often too)
> Yes, they sometimes fail to boot, and the failure message used to ask us
> to pester mingo.
I still think we should figure that out automatically. Letting
the Hypervisor pass magic boot options seems somehow unclean.
But i suppose it will only work for the paravirtualized case,
not for the case of kernel running "native" under a hypervisor
I suppose? Or does that one not panic?
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/