On Fri, 2013-05-03 at 16:47 +0100, Daniel Kiper wrote:
> > > > > Do not forget that guest may change target itself.
> > > >
> > > > Yes it can, and that can fail either due to maxmem or due to ENOMEM, and
> > > > the kernel needs prepared to deal with that when it happens.
> > >
> > > Sure but why
On Fri, May 03, 2013 at 03:11:18PM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-05-03 at 14:47 +0100, Daniel Kiper wrote:
> > On Fri, May 03, 2013 at 02:21:24PM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2013-05-03 at 14:00 +0100, Daniel Kiper wrote:
> > > > On Fri, May 03, 2013 at 09:15:32AM +0100,
On Fri, 2013-05-03 at 14:47 +0100, Daniel Kiper wrote:
> On Fri, May 03, 2013 at 02:21:24PM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > On Fri, 2013-05-03 at 14:00 +0100, Daniel Kiper wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 03, 2013 at 09:15:32AM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 2013-05-02 at 19:04 +0100, Konrad
On Fri, May 03, 2013 at 02:21:24PM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-05-03 at 14:00 +0100, Daniel Kiper wrote:
> > On Fri, May 03, 2013 at 09:15:32AM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2013-05-02 at 19:04 +0100, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > > > On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 12:34:32PM
On Fri, 2013-05-03 at 14:00 +0100, Daniel Kiper wrote:
> On Fri, May 03, 2013 at 09:15:32AM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > On Thu, 2013-05-02 at 19:04 +0100, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 12:34:32PM +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > > > The xapi guys,
On Fri, May 03, 2013 at 09:15:32AM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-05-02 at 19:04 +0100, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 12:34:32PM +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
[...]
> > > The xapi guys, CC'ed, might have more insights on what exactly is.
>
> I think that
On Thu, 2013-05-02 at 19:04 +0100, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 12:34:32PM +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > On Tue, 30 Apr 2013, Daniel Kiper wrote:
> > > > > > > +/*
> > > > > > > + * Extra internal memory reserved by libxl.
> > > > > > > + * Check
On Tue, 2013-04-30 at 19:58 +0100, Daniel Kiper wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 02:44:18PM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > On Tue, 2013-04-30 at 13:59 +0100, Daniel Kiper wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 03:44:09PM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 2013-04-29 at 12:37 +0100, Daniel
On Tue, 2013-04-30 at 19:58 +0100, Daniel Kiper wrote:
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 02:44:18PM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Tue, 2013-04-30 at 13:59 +0100, Daniel Kiper wrote:
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 03:44:09PM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Mon, 2013-04-29 at 12:37 +0100, Daniel Kiper wrote:
On Thu, 2013-05-02 at 19:04 +0100, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 12:34:32PM +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Tue, 30 Apr 2013, Daniel Kiper wrote:
+/*
+ * Extra internal memory reserved by libxl.
+ * Check tools/libxl/libxl_memory.txt file in Xen
On Fri, May 03, 2013 at 09:15:32AM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Thu, 2013-05-02 at 19:04 +0100, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 12:34:32PM +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
[...]
The xapi guys, CC'ed, might have more insights on what exactly is.
I think that unless
On Fri, 2013-05-03 at 14:00 +0100, Daniel Kiper wrote:
On Fri, May 03, 2013 at 09:15:32AM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Thu, 2013-05-02 at 19:04 +0100, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 12:34:32PM +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
[...]
The xapi guys, CC'ed, might
On Fri, May 03, 2013 at 02:21:24PM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Fri, 2013-05-03 at 14:00 +0100, Daniel Kiper wrote:
On Fri, May 03, 2013 at 09:15:32AM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Thu, 2013-05-02 at 19:04 +0100, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 12:34:32PM +0100,
On Fri, 2013-05-03 at 14:47 +0100, Daniel Kiper wrote:
On Fri, May 03, 2013 at 02:21:24PM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Fri, 2013-05-03 at 14:00 +0100, Daniel Kiper wrote:
On Fri, May 03, 2013 at 09:15:32AM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Thu, 2013-05-02 at 19:04 +0100, Konrad Rzeszutek
On Fri, May 03, 2013 at 03:11:18PM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Fri, 2013-05-03 at 14:47 +0100, Daniel Kiper wrote:
On Fri, May 03, 2013 at 02:21:24PM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Fri, 2013-05-03 at 14:00 +0100, Daniel Kiper wrote:
On Fri, May 03, 2013 at 09:15:32AM +0100, Ian Campbell
On Fri, 2013-05-03 at 16:47 +0100, Daniel Kiper wrote:
Do not forget that guest may change target itself.
Yes it can, and that can fail either due to maxmem or due to ENOMEM, and
the kernel needs prepared to deal with that when it happens.
Sure but why we would like to fail
16 matches
Mail list logo