ang
> ; Yang Hongyang ; Xen
> devel
> Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 1/3] Don't create default ioreq server
>
> Paul Durrant writes ("RE: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 1/3] Don't create default ioreq
> server"):
> > The read side effects are indeed because of the need to
Paul Durrant writes ("RE: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 1/3] Don't create default ioreq
server"):
> The read side effects are indeed because of the need to support the
> old qemu interface. If trad were patched then we could at least
> deprecate the default ioreq server but I'm
> -Original Message-
> From: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk [mailto:konrad.w...@oracle.com]
[snip]
> > >
> > > This bug is caused by the read side effects of
> > > HVM_PARAM_IOREQ_PFN. The migration code needs a way of being
> able to
> > > query whether a default ioreq server exists, without crea
gt;
> > Cc: Changlong Xie ; Wei Liu
> > ; Eddie Dong ; Andrew
> > Cooper ; Ian Jackson
> > ; Wen Congyang ; Paul
> > Durrant ; Yang Hongyang
> > ; Xen devel
> > Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 1/3] Don't create default ioreq server
> >
son
> ; Wen Congyang ; Paul
> Durrant ; Yang Hongyang
> ; Xen devel
> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 1/3] Don't create default ioreq server
>
> .snip..
> > > If you can be more specific about what is broken in COLO we might be
> > > able to devise a fix for
.snip..
> > If you can be more specific about what is broken in COLO we might be
> > able to devise a fix for you.
>
> My workmate have reported this BUG last year:
> https://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2015-12/msg02850.html
Paul, Andrew was asking about:
This bug is cau
On 12/01/2016 09:19 PM, Wei Liu wrote:
On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 05:47:50PM +0800, Zhang Chen wrote:
The ioreq server make colo run failed.
Signed-off-by: Zhang Chen
Signed-off-by: Wen Congyang
---
xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c | 11 ---
1 file changed, 11 deletions(-)
diff --git a/xen/a
At 2016/11/30 20:25, Andrew Cooper wrote:
On 30/11/16 09:47, Zhang Chen wrote:
The ioreq server make colo run failed.
Signed-off-by: Zhang Chen
Signed-off-by: Wen Congyang
Nack.
You can simply "fix" a COLO issue by breaking a much more common usecase.
Yes, this patch is wrong. It is only
On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 05:47:50PM +0800, Zhang Chen wrote:
> The ioreq server make colo run failed.
>
> Signed-off-by: Zhang Chen
> Signed-off-by: Wen Congyang
> ---
> xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c | 11 ---
> 1 file changed, 11 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c b/xen/arch
On 30/11/16 09:47, Zhang Chen wrote:
> The ioreq server make colo run failed.
>
> Signed-off-by: Zhang Chen
> Signed-off-by: Wen Congyang
Nack.
You can simply "fix" a COLO issue by breaking a much more common usecase.
What actually breaks in the COLO case here?
~Andrew
> ---
> xen/arch/x86
The ioreq server make colo run failed.
Signed-off-by: Zhang Chen
Signed-off-by: Wen Congyang
---
xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c | 11 ---
1 file changed, 11 deletions(-)
diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c
index 25dc759..8522852 100644
--- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c
+++
11 matches
Mail list logo
