This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
Home Products Support Community News


Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Prevent changing a memory size ofDomain-0 evenif

To: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Prevent changing a memory size ofDomain-0 evenif users make a careless mistake
From: Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2008 11:51:22 +0100
Cc: Ky Srinivasan <KSrinivasan@xxxxxxxxxx>, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Masaki Kanno <kanno.masaki@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Kurt Garloff <garloff@xxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Fri, 04 Apr 2008 03:52:43 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <47F62426.76E4.0078.0@xxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index: AciWQdH7EM5FPgI1Ed2H5AAX8io7RQ==
Thread-topic: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Prevent changing a memory size ofDomain-0 evenif users make a careless mistake
User-agent: Microsoft-Entourage/
On 4/4/08 11:50, "Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>>>> Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 04.04.08 12:27 >>>
>> This at least I have a bit more time for. It's trying to pick a minimum
>> below which only bad things can happen. This is a plausible thing to try for
>> when you know the details of the specific operating system (which of course
>> you do in this case, since it's implemented in an OS driver). What I don't
>> like about Masaki's patch is that it's very specific, it abuses a
>> configuration variable that actually has its own meaning specific to the
>> auto-ballooning logic, and also is frankly an unwarranted and possibly
>> unwanted expression of policy inside xend.
> So any chance you'd take it if either of the original authors or I submit
> it with a formal Signed-Off-By line?


 -- Keir

Xen-devel mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>