On Tue, Jan 07, 2025 at 09:32:05AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 06.01.2025 23:01, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > On Mon, 6 Jan 2025, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> On 06.01.2025 12:08, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> >>> On 06/01/2025 11:04 am, Jan Beulich wrote:
> These interfaces were - afaict - originally
On 06.01.2025 23:01, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Jan 2025, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 06.01.2025 12:08, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>> On 06/01/2025 11:04 am, Jan Beulich wrote:
These interfaces were - afaict - originally introduced this way on the
firm assumption that the used array si
On Mon, 6 Jan 2025, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 06.01.2025 12:08, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> > On 06/01/2025 11:04 am, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> These interfaces were - afaict - originally introduced this way on the
> >> firm assumption that the used array sizes would be good virtually
> >> forever. While t
On 06.01.2025 12:08, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 06/01/2025 11:04 am, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> These interfaces were - afaict - originally introduced this way on the
>> firm assumption that the used array sizes would be good virtually
>> forever. While this assumption turned out to not be true for at l
On 06/01/2025 11:04 am, Jan Beulich wrote:
> These interfaces were - afaict - originally introduced this way on the
> firm assumption that the used array sizes would be good virtually
> forever. While this assumption turned out to not be true for at least
> some of them, this still doesn't really
These interfaces were - afaict - originally introduced this way on the
firm assumption that the used array sizes would be good virtually
forever. While this assumption turned out to not be true for at least
some of them, this still doesn't really render them "broken": They still
fit their original
