>>> On 07.01.15 at 16:54, <boris.ostrov...@oracle.com> wrote: > On 01/07/2015 10:17 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >> I personally think that exposing e.g. the firmware >> determined (and hence hopefully stable across reboots) PXM would >> be more reasonable. > > Again, the main argument that I see against using PXM values directly is > the fact that it's not zero-based/non-contiguous.
I have to admit that I can't see why either of the aspects would matter. One thing coming to mind though is that the memory allocation interfaces want Xen node numbers passed in. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
