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


[Xen-devel] [PATCH] [Bug 933] Fix the xm mem-max command

To: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] [Bug 933] Fix the xm mem-max command
From: Masaki Kanno <kanno.masaki@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 15:16:55 +0900
Delivery-date: Sun, 25 Mar 2007 23:16:24 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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

I fixed the Xen bugzilla 933 and other bug. 

BTW, I tested the xm mem-max command with attached patch. 
The "maxmem" and the "memory" were changed as follows by the 
xm mem-max command.  Is the result specification? or 
bug?  I thought that the result is bug, so I tried to remove 
the line of "self.info['memory_dynamic_max'] = limit * MiB" 
in setMemoryMaximum().  As the result, only the "maxmem" was 
changed by the xm mem-max command. Am I right?

# xm new /xen/vm1.conf 
Using config file "/xen/vm1.conf".
# xm list --long vm1 | grep mem
    (maxmem 384)
    (memory 256)
    (shadow_memory 0)
# xm mem-max vm1 512
# xm list --long vm1 | grep mem
    (maxmem 512)
    (memory 512)
    (shadow_memory 0)

Signed-off-by: Masaki Kanno <kanno.masaki@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Best regards,

Attachment: xm_memmax.patch
Description: Binary data

Xen-devel mailing list
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>