On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 03:47:27PM +, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-03-24 at 14:41 +, Wei Liu wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 02:41:48PM +0100, Dario Faggioli wrote:
>
> > Currently all the checks that returns error are all guest visible
> > mis-configurations. I'm trying to reas
On Tue, 2015-03-24 at 14:41 +, Wei Liu wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 02:41:48PM +0100, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> Currently all the checks that returns error are all guest visible
> mis-configurations. I'm trying to reason whether we should return an
> error or just print a warning.
>
> What
On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 02:41:48PM +0100, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> More specifically, vcpus are assigned to a vnode, which in
> turn is associated with a pnode. If a vcpu also has, in its
> (hard or soft) affinity, some pcpus that are not part of the
> said pnode, print a warning to the user.
>
Cu
More specifically, vcpus are assigned to a vnode, which in
turn is associated with a pnode. If a vcpu also has, in its
(hard or soft) affinity, some pcpus that are not part of the
said pnode, print a warning to the user.
Signed-off-by: Dario Faggioli
Cc: Ian Campbell
Cc: Ian Jackson
Cc: Stefano
