On 11.01.2021 14:34, Igor Druzhinin wrote: > On 11/01/2021 09:16, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 11.01.2021 10:12, Paul Durrant wrote: >>>> From: Paul Durrant <xadimg...@gmail.com> >>>> Sent: 11 January 2021 09:10 >>>> >>>>> From: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> >>>>> Sent: 11 January 2021 09:00 >>>>> >>>>> On 11.01.2021 09:45, Paul Durrant wrote: >>>>>> You can add my R-b to the patch. >>>>> >>>>> That's the unchanged patch then, including the libxl change that >>>>> I had asked about and that I have to admit I don't fully follow >>>>> Igor's responses? I'm hesitant to give an ack for that aspect of >>>>> the change, yet I suppose the libxl maintainers will defer to >>>>> x86 ones there. Alternatively Andrew or Roger could of course >>>>> ack this ... >>>>> >>>> >>>> I don't think we really need specific control in xl.cfg as this is a fix >>>> for some poorly documented >>>> semantics in the spec. The flag simply prevents the leaf magically >>>> appearing on migrate and I think >>>> that's enough. >>> >>> ... although adding an option in xl/libxl isn't that much work, I suppose. >>> >>> Igor, would you be ok plumbing it through? >> >> This back and forth leaves unclear to me what I should do. I >> would have asked on irc, but you're not there as it seems. > > I don't see a scenario where somebody would want to opt out of unlimited > VPs per domain given the leaf with -1 is supported on all Windows versions.
So Paul - commit patch as is then? > I can make it configurable in the future if reports re-surface it causes > troubles somewhere. This is the slight concern I have: Having to make it configurable once someone has reported trouble would look a little late to me. Otoh I agree it may end up being dead code if no problems get ever encountered. Jan
