On Mon, 2016-01-18 at 09:51 -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > On 18.01.16 at 17:32, wrote:
> > I must confess I'm not entirely following what the various proposals
> > are,
>
> What is currently implemented by the patch is that, upon error on
> iteration N the hypervisor would clean up on a best
>>> On 18.01.16 at 17:32, wrote:
> I must confess I'm not entirely following what the various proposals are,
What is currently implemented by the patch is that, upon error on
iteration N the hypervisor would clean up on a best effort basis and
return the error indicator. In the alternative sugges
On Mon, 2016-01-18 at 01:11 -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > On 15.01.16 at 15:55, wrote:
> > On Fri, 2016-01-15 at 07:39 -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > I don't think I agree - there are two models. The meaning of
> > > -E2BIG for the caller to retry with a smaller amount doesn't exist in
> > >
>>> On 15.01.16 at 15:55, wrote:
> On Fri, 2016-01-15 at 07:39 -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> I don't think I agree - there are two models. The meaning of
>> -E2BIG for the caller to retry with a smaller amount doesn't exist in
>> the new model anymore, and hence libxc wouldn't need to deal
>> with
On Fri, 2016-01-15 at 07:39 -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > On 15.01.16 at 14:57, wrote:
> > On Fri, 2016-01-15 at 03:47 -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > > > On 15.01.16 at 11:09, wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 2016-01-14 at 03:04 -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > > - ARM side unimplemented (and hence
>>> On 15.01.16 at 14:57, wrote:
> On Fri, 2016-01-15 at 03:47 -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> > > > On 15.01.16 at 11:09, wrote:
>> > On Thu, 2016-01-14 at 03:04 -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> > > - ARM side unimplemented (and hence libxc for now made cope with both
>> > > models),
>> >
>> > So, o
On Fri, 2016-01-15 at 03:47 -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > On 15.01.16 at 11:09, wrote:
> > On Thu, 2016-01-14 at 03:04 -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > - ARM side unimplemented (and hence libxc for now made cope with both
> > > models),
> >
> > So, one model is the one described in the commi
>>> On 15.01.16 at 11:09, wrote:
> On Thu, 2016-01-14 at 03:04 -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> - ARM side unimplemented (and hence libxc for now made cope with both
>> models),
>
> So, one model is the one described in the commit message:
>
>> - zero (success, everything done)
>> - positive (succ
On Thu, 2016-01-14 at 03:04 -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
> - ARM side unimplemented (and hence libxc for now made cope with both
> models),
So, one model is the one described in the commit message:
> - zero (success, everything done)
> - positive (success, this many done, more to do: re-invoke)
>
When mapping large BARs (e.g. the frame buffer of a graphics card) the
overhead of establishing such mappings using only 4k pages has,
particularly after the XSA-125 fix, become unacceptable. Alter the
XEN_DOMCTL_memory_mapping semantics once again, so that there's no
longer a fixed amount of guest
10 matches
Mail list logo