From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: Questions on the VMentry failure patch Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2008 17:24:32 +0300 Message-ID: <48722720.7050409@qumranet.com> References: <52d4a3890807070707n4e0039ccgc07aa0fa3ab28d8e@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, Rik van Riel , Guillaume Thouvenin To: Mohammed Gamal Return-path: Received: from il.qumranet.com ([212.179.150.194]:42963 "EHLO il.qumranet.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753237AbYGGOYd (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Jul 2008 10:24:33 -0400 In-Reply-To: <52d4a3890807070707n4e0039ccgc07aa0fa3ab28d8e@mail.gmail.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Mohammed Gamal wrote: > Hello, > Guillaume Thouvenin's VMentry failure detection patch was reverted > before because it broke guest rebooting. Although it turned out it > didn't, it was preferred not to re-include it because it was not > reliable enough. Although it is working fine with me, I want to know > why it wasn't re-included? Did it cause any regressions? Is it > preferrable to use an alternative mechanism to detect the VM entry > failure and start real-mode emulation? If yes, What do you think it > should be? > > Anthony Liguori reported problems with Ubuntu IIRC. I'd like to know that they are fixed, or what exactly the issue was. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function