Re: [PATCH] libxl: correct xl cpupool-numa-split with vcpu limited dom0

From: Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com>
To: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>
Cc: Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>,
	Dario Faggioli <dario.faggioli@citrix.com>,
	glenn@rimuhosting.com, xen-devel@lists.xen.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] libxl: correct xl cpupool-numa-split with vcpu limited dom0
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 11:07:31 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <22367.55139.582581.11528@mariner.uk.xensource.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160614095652.GE28116@citrix.com>

Wei Liu writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] libxl: correct xl cpupool-numa-split with vcpu limited dom0"):
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 11:01:50AM +0200, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> > On Tue, 2016-06-14 at 06:30 +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
> > > When trying to use xl cpupool-numa-split and dom0 is limited to less
> > > vcpus than one numa node the operation will fail.
> > > 
> > > Correct this by allowing this configuration.
> > > 
> > > Reported-by: Glenn Enright <glenn@rimuhosting.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>
> > >
> > Reviewed-by: Dario Faggioli <dario.faggioli@citrix.com>
> 
> Acked-by: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>
> 
> I think this is also a backport candidate?

Possibly.

I looked at the code for a minute or two, and perhaps I'm being dense
this morning, but I wasn't able to see (from the code and the commit
message and from the diff) precisely what misunderstanding the
original author of the code had, and how this patch fixes it.

I don't want to backport (non-security) things unless they have a very
low chance of regressions.  So perhaps someone could either explain it
to me, or assert convincingly that they are sure it's right :-).

Thanks,
Ian.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel