On 26/02/15 13:54, Jan Beulich wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich
Reviewed-by: Andrew Cooper
___
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
On Fri, 2015-02-27 at 13:36 +, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 27.02.15 at 14:27, wrote:
> > I'm asking because I really don't like vcpu_to_node(). And I'm not
> > talking about how it is implemented (there probably are not much
> > alternatives), I'm saying I don't think it should exist, and I r
>>> On 27.02.15 at 14:46, wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-02-27 at 13:27 +, Dario Faggioli wrote:
>> On Thu, 2015-02-26 at 13:54 +, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> > Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich
>> >
>> Reviewed-by: Dario Faggioli
>>
>> One question (a genuine one, i.e., I'm really not sure what I'm saying
On Fri, 2015-02-27 at 13:46 +, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-02-27 at 13:27 +, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> > After this series, vcpu_to_node() (defined in xen/include/xen/numa.h) is
> > left with only one use, in xen/arch/arm/domain.c, besides of course
> > being used to implement domain_
>>> On 27.02.15 at 14:38, wrote:
> Given the changes made by Jan on x86, I think we could replace
> vcpu_to_node by MEMF_no_owner.
That would imply you switch from alloc_xenheap_pages() to
alloc_homheap_pages(). Yet if that's safe to do, I don't see
why it's not already the latter.
Jan
___
On Fri, 2015-02-27 at 13:38 +, Julien Grall wrote:
> >> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich
> >>
> > Reviewed-by: Dario Faggioli
> >
> > One question (a genuine one, i.e., I'm really not sure what I'm saying
> > is correct).
> >
> > After this series, vcpu_to_node() (defined in xen/include/xen/numa
On Fri, 2015-02-27 at 13:27 +, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-02-26 at 13:54 +, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich
> >
> Reviewed-by: Dario Faggioli
>
> One question (a genuine one, i.e., I'm really not sure what I'm saying
> is correct).
>
> After this series, vcp
Hi Dario,
On 27/02/15 13:27, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-02-26 at 13:54 +, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich
>>
> Reviewed-by: Dario Faggioli
>
> One question (a genuine one, i.e., I'm really not sure what I'm saying
> is correct).
>
> After this series, vcpu_to_nod
>>> On 27.02.15 at 14:27, wrote:
> One question (a genuine one, i.e., I'm really not sure what I'm saying
> is correct).
>
> After this series, vcpu_to_node() (defined in xen/include/xen/numa.h) is
> left with only one use, in xen/arch/arm/domain.c, besides of course
> being used to implement dom
On Thu, 2015-02-26 at 13:54 +, Jan Beulich wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich
>
Reviewed-by: Dario Faggioli
One question (a genuine one, i.e., I'm really not sure what I'm saying
is correct).
After this series, vcpu_to_node() (defined in xen/include/xen/numa.h) is
left with only one use,
Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich
--- a/xen/arch/x86/domain.c
+++ b/xen/arch/x86/domain.c
@@ -285,7 +285,8 @@ struct vcpu_guest_context *alloc_vcpu_gu
for ( i = 0; i < PFN_UP(sizeof(struct vcpu_guest_context)); ++i )
{
-struct page_info *pg = alloc_domheap_page(NULL, 0);
+str
11 matches
Mail list logo
