> -----Original Message----- > From: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> > Sent: 11 January 2021 13:38 > To: Igor Druzhinin <igor.druzhi...@citrix.com>; p...@xen.org > Cc: w...@xen.org; i...@xenproject.org; anthony.per...@citrix.com; > andrew.coop...@citrix.com; > george.dun...@citrix.com; jul...@xen.org; sstabell...@kernel.org; > roger....@citrix.com; xen- > de...@lists.xenproject.org > Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] viridian: remove implicit limit of 64 VPs per > partition > > 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. >
I think I'm persuaded by your caution. Since it's not a massive amount of code, let's have flags for both wired through to xl and default them to on, so I withdraw my R-b for the libxl_x86.c hunk. Paul > Jan
