On 07/04/2018 02:56 PM, Pavel Hrdina wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 04, 2018 at 02:35:23PM +0200, Michal Prívozník wrote:
>> On 07/04/2018 02:05 PM, Pavel Hrdina wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jul 04, 2018 at 01:51:57PM +0200, Michal Privoznik wrote:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1448149
>>>
>>> This
On Wed, Jul 04, 2018 at 02:35:23PM +0200, Michal Prívozník wrote:
> On 07/04/2018 02:05 PM, Pavel Hrdina wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 04, 2018 at 01:51:57PM +0200, Michal Privoznik wrote:
> >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1448149
> >
> > This BZ is not related to the patch, it describes d
On 07/04/2018 02:05 PM, Pavel Hrdina wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 04, 2018 at 01:51:57PM +0200, Michal Privoznik wrote:
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1448149
>
> This BZ is not related to the patch, it describes different issue.
>
> There is different BZ that tracks the issue:
>
> https
On Wed, Jul 04, 2018 at 01:51:57PM +0200, Michal Privoznik wrote:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1448149
This BZ is not related to the patch, it describes different issue.
There is different BZ that tracks the issue:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1591235
> In fa6bdf
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1448149
In fa6bdf6afa878 and ec982f6d929f3c23 I've tried to forbid
configuring for non-existent guest NUMA nodes.
However, the check was not fine tuned enough as it failed when no
guest NUMA was configured but were configured for
guest NUMA node #0.
S
