Stefano Stabellini wrote: > On Fri, 6 Mar 2015, Ian Campbell wrote: > >> This is missing my point. >> >> We need to consider the case of a modified libvirt with the old, broken, >> libxl too. >> > > For that case, we might want to make sure that the new timeout passed to > libxl_wait_for_memory_target is not lower than the overall libvirt > timeout today (libxl_wait_for_free_memory+libxl_wait_for_memory_target). >
Currently in libvirt, libxl_wait_for_free_memory+libxl_wait_for_memory_target = 11sec. But IMO it will be fine to replace that with 'libxl_wait_for_memory_target(ctx, 0, 10)', as you did for xl in 3/4. A modified libvirt with unmodified libxl would behave the same as a modified xl with unmodified libxl. Regards, Jim _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
