Laszlo Ersek ler...@redhat.com writes:
...
First, see my comments on the KVM patch.
Second, ram_size is not the right thing to compare. What should be
checked is whether the highest guest-physical address that maps to RAM
can be represented in the address width of the host processor (and
On Thu, 09 Jul 2015 09:02:38 +0200
Laszlo Ersek ler...@redhat.com wrote:
On 07/09/15 00:42, Bandan Das wrote:
If a Linux guest is assigned more memory than is supported
by the host processor, the guest is unable to boot. That
is expected, however, there's no message indicating the user
On 07/09/15 11:27, Igor Mammedov wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jul 2015 09:02:38 +0200
Laszlo Ersek ler...@redhat.com wrote:
On 07/09/15 00:42, Bandan Das wrote:
If a Linux guest is assigned more memory than is supported
by the host processor, the guest is unable to boot. That
is expected, however,
On Wed, 08 Jul 2015 18:42:01 -0400
Bandan Das b...@redhat.com wrote:
If a Linux guest is assigned more memory than is supported
by the host processor, the guest is unable to boot. That
is expected, however, there's no message indicating the user
what went wrong. This change prints a message
On 07/09/15 21:11, Bandan Das wrote:
Laszlo Ersek ler...@redhat.com writes:
...
First, see my comments on the KVM patch.
Second, ram_size is not the right thing to compare. What should be
checked is whether the highest guest-physical address that maps to RAM
can be represented in the
Igor Mammedov imamm...@redhat.com writes:
On Wed, 08 Jul 2015 18:42:01 -0400
Bandan Das b...@redhat.com wrote:
If a Linux guest is assigned more memory than is supported
by the host processor, the guest is unable to boot. That
is expected, however, there's no message indicating the user
