|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
xen-devel
Re: [Xen-devel] Re: Xenheap disappearance: (was:xen_phys_startfor32b)
On 20/01/2009 09:11, "Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> *must* be accompanied by a tools change in order to be usable
>>
>> Yes, I see that it would be a must for your different paradigm,
>> but less important in the one I am accustomed to.
>
> Since there's no dom0_mem used by default in -unstable, the 'must'
> applies there too.
We do specify one for our internal automated tests however. Really we do not
test the auto-ballooner.
-- Keir
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread> |
- RE: [Xen-devel] RE: Xenheap disappearance: (was: xen_phys_start for 32b), (continued)
- RE: [Xen-devel] RE: Xenheap disappearance: (was: xen_phys_start for 32b), Dan Magenheimer
- [Xen-devel] Re: Xenheap disappearance: (was: xen_phys_start for 32b), Keir Fraser
- Re: [Xen-devel] Re: Xenheap disappearance: (was: xen_phys_start for 32b), Keir Fraser
- RE: [Xen-devel] Re: Xenheap disappearance: (was: xen_phys_start for 32b), Dan Magenheimer
- Re: [Xen-devel] Re: Xenheap disappearance: (was: xen_phys_start for 32b), Keir Fraser
- Re: [Xen-devel] Re: Xenheap disappearance: (was: xen_phys_start for32b), Jan Beulich
- RE: [Xen-devel] Re: Xenheap disappearance: (was: xen_phys_start for32b), Dan Magenheimer
- RE: [Xen-devel] Re: Xenheap disappearance: (was: xen_phys_startfor32b), Jan Beulich
- RE: [Xen-devel] Re: Xenheap disappearance: (was: xen_phys_startfor32b), Dan Magenheimer
- RE: [Xen-devel] Re: Xenheap disappearance: (was:xen_phys_startfor32b), Jan Beulich
- Re: [Xen-devel] Re: Xenheap disappearance: (was:xen_phys_startfor32b),
Keir Fraser <=
|
|
|
|
|