Re: [libvirt] [PATCH 1/2] node_memory: Do not fail if there is parameter unsupported

2012-11-27 Thread Eric Blake
> But is this really right, or shouldn't we at least be able to > fake things? If the OS doesn't support tuning a variable, then > we should return a hard-coded value for the default setting > of that variable (in relation to newer kernels that DO support > tuning), rather than omitting it altoget

Re: [libvirt] [PATCH 1/2] node_memory: Do not fail if there is parameter unsupported

2012-11-27 Thread Eric Blake
> ping > > On 2012年11月22日 11:14, Osier Yang wrote: > > It makes no sense to fail the whole command if there is parameter > > unsupported by the kernel. This patch fixes it by ignoring the > > unsupported parameter for getMemoryParameters, and ignoring the > > unsupported parameter for setMemoryPar

Re: [libvirt] [PATCH 1/2] node_memory: Do not fail if there is parameter unsupported

2012-11-26 Thread Osier Yang
ping On 2012年11月22日 11:14, Osier Yang wrote: It makes no sense to fail the whole command if there is parameter unsupported by the kernel. This patch fixes it by ignoring the unsupported parameter for getMemoryParameters, and ignoring the unsupported parameter for setMemoryParameters too if there

[libvirt] [PATCH 1/2] node_memory: Do not fail if there is parameter unsupported

2012-11-21 Thread Osier Yang
It makes no sense to fail the whole command if there is parameter unsupported by the kernel. This patch fixes it by ignoring the unsupported parameter for getMemoryParameters, and ignoring the unsupported parameter for setMemoryParameters too if there are more than one parameters to set, otherwise