>>> On 08.01.15 at 16:49, <boris.ostrov...@oracle.com> wrote: > On 01/08/2015 04:50 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>> On 07.01.15 at 18:55, <dario.faggi...@citrix.com> wrote: >>> There probably would not be too serious issues in converting everything >>> to PXM, or adding duplicates, but I don't see the reason why we should >>> do such a thing... Perhaps I'm missing what using PXM would actually buy >>> us? >> As long as those node IDs don't get stored persistently for future >> use, using them (despite being a Xen internal representation) >> ought to be fine. My concern really is that such Xen internals may >> easily get mis-used in the tool stack, e.g. assuming that they won't >> change across reboots (perhaps after a hypervisor update). > > Are PXMs guaranteed to be persistent across firmware upgrades? I don't > see anything about this in the APCI spec. The only semi-relevant > statement that I found was that PXM values are meaningless (i.e. they > are much like cookies).
Right, and I alluded to that earlier on. Still firmware updates are presumable less frequent than hypervisor ones. > (FWIW, Linux exposes nodeIDs in the same manner as Xen. In fact, Xen's > srat.c appears to be derived from Linux code.) Not sure what the latter has to do with the former. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
