On Wed, 2015-05-13 at 14:46 +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
So what's the situation with this patch? Can it go in? Is someone
working on a better fix for the described problem?
Stefano, Are you?
Regardless it seems to me that this patch is correct in its own right,
having maxmem_kb be a
On Wed, 2015-05-13 at 08:18 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 22.04.15 at 19:55, ian.campb...@citrix.com wrote:
On Wed, 2015-04-22 at 17:33 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 22.04.15 at 17:36, ian.campb...@citrix.com wrote:
On Wed, 2015-04-22 at 15:41 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 22.04.15 at
On 22.04.15 at 19:55, ian.campb...@citrix.com wrote:
On Wed, 2015-04-22 at 17:33 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 22.04.15 at 17:36, ian.campb...@citrix.com wrote:
On Wed, 2015-04-22 at 15:41 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 22.04.15 at 16:01, ian.campb...@citrix.com wrote:
On Wed, 2015-04-22
On 22.04.15 at 17:36, ian.campb...@citrix.com wrote:
On Wed, 2015-04-22 at 15:41 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 22.04.15 at 16:01, ian.campb...@citrix.com wrote:
On Wed, 2015-04-22 at 13:02 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
Said commit (libxl_set_memory_target: retain the same maxmem offset on
top
On Wed, 22 Apr 2015, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 22.04.15 at 15:57, stefano.stabell...@eu.citrix.com wrote:
From the description of the problem above, we have two issues:
1) we don't detect that maxmem is already UINT_MAX*4, so we shouldn't try
to increase it
2) unsigned int /
On Wed, 2015-04-22 at 13:02 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
Said commit (libxl_set_memory_target: retain the same maxmem offset on
top of the current target) caused a regression for xl mem-set
against Dom0: While prior to creation of the first domain this works,
the first domain creation involving
On Wed, 22 Apr 2015, Jan Beulich wrote:
Said commit (libxl_set_memory_target: retain the same maxmem offset on
top of the current target) caused a regression for xl mem-set
against Dom0: While prior to creation of the first domain this works,
the first domain creation involving ballooning
On 22.04.15 at 16:01, ian.campb...@citrix.com wrote:
On Wed, 2015-04-22 at 13:02 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
Said commit (libxl_set_memory_target: retain the same maxmem offset on
top of the current target) caused a regression for xl mem-set
against Dom0: While prior to creation of the first
On 22.04.15 at 15:57, stefano.stabell...@eu.citrix.com wrote:
From the description of the problem above, we have two issues:
1) we don't detect that maxmem is already UINT_MAX*4, so we shouldn't try
to increase it
2) unsigned int / uint64_t mismatch
1) is pretty easy and might
On Wed, 2015-04-22 at 15:41 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 22.04.15 at 16:01, ian.campb...@citrix.com wrote:
On Wed, 2015-04-22 at 13:02 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
Said commit (libxl_set_memory_target: retain the same maxmem offset on
top of the current target) caused a regression for xl
On Wed, 2015-04-22 at 17:33 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 22.04.15 at 17:36, ian.campb...@citrix.com wrote:
On Wed, 2015-04-22 at 15:41 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 22.04.15 at 16:01, ian.campb...@citrix.com wrote:
On Wed, 2015-04-22 at 13:02 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
Said commit
Said commit (libxl_set_memory_target: retain the same maxmem offset on
top of the current target) caused a regression for xl mem-set
against Dom0: While prior to creation of the first domain this works,
the first domain creation involving ballooning breaks. Due to enforce
not being set in the
12 matches
Mail list logo
