[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 3/3] tools: introduce parameter max_wp_ram_ranges.
- To: Paul Durrant <Paul.Durrant@xxxxxxxxxx>, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>, Zhang Yu <yu.c.zhang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- From: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 10:25:03 +0000
- Accept-language: en-US
- Cc: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx>, Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>, Andrew Cooper <Andrew.Cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>, George Dunlap <dunlapg@xxxxxxxxx>, George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx>, "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Stefano Stabellini <Stefano.Stabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Lv, Zhiyuan" <zhiyuan.lv@xxxxxxxxx>, Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Keir \(Xen.org\)" <keir@xxxxxxx>
- Delivery-date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 10:25:12 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xen.org>
- Thread-index: AQHRX+/DGYZZ2/WMzUmIfvb5dHRHGJ8Sn8oAgAFyHYCAArNogIAARdEAgAADgACAAAmzgIAABOKAgAAjgICAABI8gIAABHwAgAAAZQCAAAfsAIABJGWAgAAGwYCAAASEgIAAL1YAgAALeoCAAATdgIAABgUAgAEI54CAABcOAIAAT0zQ///0twCAABNcsP//82cAgAARn+D///M5AAACHL6QAADmLIAABje+gAABX/eAAB5dC4AAA0uQgP//8xIAgAAPkYCAADIbgIAACaoAgAAzcYCAAQEcgP//4sAggABKd4D//+4ccIARGtoA///ZyrAAC3KlgP//5w3Q//7Oe4D//TDvsP/6XhgA//S1boD/6VnU8P/SviBg
- Thread-topic: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 3/3] tools: introduce parameter max_wp_ram_ranges.
> From: Paul Durrant [mailto:Paul.Durrant@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 6:24 PM
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jan Beulich [mailto:JBeulich@xxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: 17 February 2016 10:22
> > To: Paul Durrant; Kevin Tian; Zhang Yu
> > Cc: Andrew Cooper; George Dunlap; Ian Campbell; Ian Jackson; Stefano
> > Stabellini; Wei Liu; Zhiyuan Lv; xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; George Dunlap;
> > Keir
> > (Xen.org)
> > Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 3/3] tools: introduce parameter
> > max_wp_ram_ranges.
> >
> > >>> On 17.02.16 at 10:58, <kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > Thanks for the help. Let's see whether we can have some solution ready
> > for
> > > 4.7. :-)
> >
> > Since we now seem to all agree that a different approach is going to
> > be taken, I think we indeed should revert f5a32c5b8e ("x86/HVM:
> > differentiate IO/mem resources tracked by ioreq server"). Please
> > voice objections to the plan pretty soon.
> >
>
> I'm happy with reversion at this point.
>
Agree.
Thanks
Kevin
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
