[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: upgrade to new xen domU on old xen dom0?



On Sun, 2010-03-28 at 08:41 +0100, Ian Campbell wrote: 
> On Sat, 2010-03-27 at 22:09 +0100, Josip Rodin wrote: 
> > On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 06:11:15PM +0000, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > > > OK, that works, thanks. We have got to get this documented somewhere
> > > > now that the deprecated option is broken. There is no mention of it at
> > > > http://wiki.debian.org/Xen and simple googling is far from conclusive.
> > > 
> > > Would you mind updating the wiki with your findings?
> > 
> > OK, done.
> > 
> > Speaking of the new domU, does anyone know anything about this:
> > 
> > [    0.000000] Calgary: detecting Calgary via BIOS EBDA area
> > [    0.000000] Calgary: Unable to locate Rio Grande table in EBDA - bailing!
> 
> The pvops kernel doesn't have as much opportunity to prevent probing of
> stuff you would only see on native as the old style kernels, so you will
> tend to see more attempts to find stuff which isn't there.
> 
> This seems to be correctly not finding Calgary (something you would not
> expect to find domU). I find drivers which make noise even before they
> have tried to detect their hardware and ones that print a message when
> they don't find it to be a bit anti-social but other than that I think
> everything is fine.

In fairness the messages in this case are at KERN_DEBUG level, so at
least they wouldn't normally be printed, although they do pollute dmesg.

Ian.

-- 
Ian Campbell

If I'm over the hill, why is it I don't recall ever being on top?
		-- Jerry Muscha

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


Reply to: