On 16.08.2025 13:19, Bernhard Kaindl wrote: > With a single global count for the claims it is easy to substract > domain_tot_pages() from the claim so the number given in the hypercall > is the real reservation of the domain. This is the current behaviour. > > However, a later patch introduces node-specific claims and those interact > very poorly with such a scheme. Since accounting domain_tot_pages() in > one case but not the other seems strictly worse than not accounting them > at all (which is at least consistent), this patch stops substracting > tot_pages from the claim and instead checks that claimed memory + > allocated memory don't exceed max_mem. > > Arguably it's also clearer for the caller to align the amount of claimed > memory with that of the requested claim. xl/libxenguest code never updated > an existing claim: It stakes a claim, allocates all domain memory, cancels > a possible leftover claim, finishes building the domain and unpauses it. > > Signed-off-by: Bernhard Kaindl <bernhard.kai...@cloud.com> > Signed-off-by: Alejandro Vallejo <alejandro.garciavall...@amd.com>
Is this order (and the lack of From:) correct? A patch of the same title was submitted by Alejandro at some point. Additionally the cover letter lists this one patch as the sole Alejandro-only one. I'm also uncertain if you may freely alter the original S-o-b, which was still having his @cloud.com email address afaict. > --- > xen/common/page_alloc.c | 19 ++++++------------- > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) >From eyeballing both patches nothing has changed. That would support the tagging as Alejandro-only in the cover letter, but it also means review comments weren't addressed. Such non-addressing would, however, require a verbal reply to those review comments, which I can't find any record of. Instead in a reply to Roger's comments Alejandro indicated that there indeed was an oversight on his part. My separate comment wasn't replied to at all. Jan
