On 11/01/2021 13:47, Paul Durrant wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> >> Sent: 11 January 2021 13:38 >> To: Igor Druzhinin <igor.druzhi...@citrix.com>; p...@xen.org >> Cc: w...@xen.org; i...@xenproject.org; anthony.per...@citrix.com; >> andrew.coop...@citrix.com; >> george.dun...@citrix.com; jul...@xen.org; sstabell...@kernel.org; >> roger....@citrix.com; xen- >> de...@lists.xenproject.org >> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] viridian: remove implicit limit of 64 VPs per >> partition >> >> On 11.01.2021 14:34, Igor Druzhinin wrote: >>> On 11/01/2021 09:16, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 11.01.2021 10:12, Paul Durrant wrote: >>>>>> From: Paul Durrant <xadimg...@gmail.com> >>>>>> Sent: 11 January 2021 09:10 >>>>>> >>>>>>> From: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> >>>>>>> Sent: 11 January 2021 09:00 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 11.01.2021 09:45, Paul Durrant wrote: >>>>>>>> You can add my R-b to the patch. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That's the unchanged patch then, including the libxl change that >>>>>>> I had asked about and that I have to admit I don't fully follow >>>>>>> Igor's responses? I'm hesitant to give an ack for that aspect of >>>>>>> the change, yet I suppose the libxl maintainers will defer to >>>>>>> x86 ones there. Alternatively Andrew or Roger could of course >>>>>>> ack this ... >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't think we really need specific control in xl.cfg as this is a fix >>>>>> for some poorly >> documented >>>>>> semantics in the spec. The flag simply prevents the leaf magically >>>>>> appearing on migrate and I >> think >>>>>> that's enough. >>>>> >>>>> ... although adding an option in xl/libxl isn't that much work, I suppose. >>>>> >>>>> Igor, would you be ok plumbing it through? >>>> >>>> This back and forth leaves unclear to me what I should do. I >>>> would have asked on irc, but you're not there as it seems. >>> >>> I don't see a scenario where somebody would want to opt out of unlimited >>> VPs per domain given the leaf with -1 is supported on all Windows versions. >> >> So Paul - commit patch as is then? >> >>> I can make it configurable in the future if reports re-surface it causes >>> troubles somewhere. >> >> This is the slight concern I have: Having to make it configurable >> once someone has reported trouble would look a little late to me. >> Otoh I agree it may end up being dead code if no problems get >> ever encountered. >> > > I think I'm persuaded by your caution. Since it's not a massive amount of > code, let's have flags for both wired through to xl and default them to on, > so I withdraw my R-b for the libxl_x86.c hunk.
Ok, will re-work the patches. Igot
