From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753321AbYHSGzR (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Aug 2008 02:55:17 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750851AbYHSGzD (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Aug 2008 02:55:03 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:36040 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750789AbYHSGzC (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Aug 2008 02:55:02 -0400 Message-ID: <48AA6DC4.9060709@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 08:52:52 +0200 From: Chris Lalancette User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (X11/20080723) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge CC: "xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH]: Expand Xen blkfront for > 16 xvd References: <48A400EC.9040407@redhat.com> <48A9AE88.3060507@goop.org> In-Reply-To: <48A9AE88.3060507@goop.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > Chris Lalancette wrote: >> Jeremy, >> Until recently, the maximum number of xvd block devices you could attach to >> a Xen domU was 16. This limitation turned out to be problematic for some users, >> so it was expanded to handle a much larger number of disks. However, this >> requires a couple of changes in the way that blkfront scans for disks. This >> functionality is already present in the Xen linux-2.6.18-xen.hg tree; the >> attached patch adds this functionality to the mainline xen-blkfront >> implementation. > > I haven't tested this yet. You have tested it OK with some pvops > kernel? If so, send it to Jens Axboe with my ack. Yes, I tested it with a 2.6.25-something Fedora 9 pv-ops kernel (i386). I'll send it along to Jens. > >> I successfully tested it on a 2.6.25 tree. I build tested it >> on 2.6.27-rc3, but couldn't get that tree to boot due to some other bug. > > What other bug? This is http://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459067, that I think you've already looked at. Basically any F-10 or upstream git kernel is crashing on an i386 RHEL-5 HV. We were a little confused by your comment in that bug, however; we were under the impression that the fix you mentioned was specifically a 32-on-64 fix, not for 32-on-32. If we were wrong, please point it out. Thanks, Chris Lalancette