| |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
xen-devel
[Xen-devel] RE: Memory hot-add and c/s 20892: bad interaction?
Keir/Jan, thanks for your notice.
Thanks
--jyh
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Keir Fraser [mailto:keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>Sent: Monday, February 08, 2010 7:15 PM
>To: Jan Beulich; Jiang, Yunhong
>Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: Memory hot-add and c/s 20892: bad interaction?
>
>On 08/02/2010 11:09, "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>> I was wondering whether this changeset is actually a bad idea in light of
>>> memory hot-add, as now implemented by Yunhong? I would imagine this can
>mean
>>> that max_mfn is now dynamic, and can increase in value after boot. So would
>>> 20892 thus leave all existing guests (e.g., dom0!) broken after a hot-add
>>> which adds new highest RAM addresses?
>>
>> You probably overlooked the
>>
>> + if ( !mem_hotplug )
>
>Yeah, I looked at the changeset comment and not the patch itself! Sorry
>about that.
>
> -- Keir
>
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
|
|
| |
|
Home