Jan Beulich
2011-Jul-13 14:29 UTC
Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xen: update machine_to_phys_order on resume
>>> Ian Campbell 07/13/11 11:12 AM >>> >It''s not so much an objection to this patch but this issue seems to have >been caused by Xen cset 20892:d311d1efc25e which looks to me like a >subtle ABI breakage for guests. Perhaps we should introduce a feature >flag to indicate that a guest can cope with the m2p changing size over >migration like this?Indeed - migration was completely beyond my consideration when submitting this. A feature flag seems the right way to go to me. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
Olaf Hering
2011-Jul-14 10:26 UTC
Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xen: update machine_to_phys_order on resume
On Wed, Jul 13, Jan Beulich wrote:> >>> Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com> 07/13/11 11:12 AM >>> > >It''s not so much an objection to this patch but this issue seems to have > >been caused by Xen cset 20892:d311d1efc25e which looks to me like a > >subtle ABI breakage for guests. Perhaps we should introduce a feature > >flag to indicate that a guest can cope with the m2p changing size over > >migration like this? > > Indeed - migration was completely beyond my consideration when > submitting this. A feature flag seems the right way to go to me.I will prepare a patch for a new feature flag. Olaf _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
Jan Beulich
2011-Jul-15 08:32 UTC
Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xen: update machine_to_phys_order on resume
>>> On 14.07.11 at 12:26, Olaf Hering <olaf@aepfle.de> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 13, Jan Beulich wrote: > >> >>> Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com> 07/13/11 11:12 AM >>> >> >It''s not so much an objection to this patch but this issue seems to have >> >been caused by Xen cset 20892:d311d1efc25e which looks to me like a >> >subtle ABI breakage for guests. Perhaps we should introduce a feature >> >flag to indicate that a guest can cope with the m2p changing size over >> >migration like this? >> >> Indeed - migration was completely beyond my consideration when >> submitting this. A feature flag seems the right way to go to me. > > I will prepare a patch for a new feature flag.Let me fold this into the feature handling change patch I''m close to submit - without those changes I don''t think a guest kernel would have a way to actually announce its capability. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel