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] Re: [PATCH]: Expand Xen blkfront for > 16 xvd

To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH]: Expand Xen blkfront for > 16 xvd
From: Chris Lalancette <clalance@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 08:52:52 +0200
Cc: "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivery-date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 23:55:22 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <48A9AE88.3060507@xxxxxxxx>
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/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <48A400EC.9040407@xxxxxxxxxx> <48A9AE88.3060507@xxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Thunderbird (X11/20080723)
Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> Chris Lalancette wrote:
>> Jeremy,
>>      Until recently, the maximum number of xvd block devices you could 
>> attach to
>> a Xen domU was 16.  This limitation turned out to be problematic for some 
>> users,
>> so it was expanded to handle a much larger number of disks.  However, this
>> requires a couple of changes in the way that blkfront scans for disks.  This
>> functionality is already present in the Xen linux-2.6.18-xen.hg tree; the
>> attached patch adds this functionality to the mainline xen-blkfront
>> implementation.
> I haven't tested this yet.  You have tested it OK with some pvops
> kernel?  If so, send it to Jens Axboe with my ack.

Yes, I tested it with a 2.6.25-something Fedora 9 pv-ops kernel (i386).  I'll
send it along to Jens.

>>   I successfully tested it on a 2.6.25 tree.  I build tested it
>> on 2.6.27-rc3, but couldn't get that tree to boot due to some other bug.
> What other bug?

This is http://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459067, that I think you've
already looked at.  Basically any F-10 or upstream git kernel is crashing on an
i386 RHEL-5 HV.  We were a little confused by your comment in that bug, however;
we were under the impression that the fix you mentioned was specifically a
32-on-64 fix, not for 32-on-32.  If we were wrong, please point it out.

Chris Lalancette

Xen-devel mailing list

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