Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 09 of 10 v3] libxl: have NUMA placement deal with cpupools

[Dario Faggioli <raistlin@xxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 2012-07-06 at 14:27 +0100, George Dunlap wrote: 
> > Maybe, if we're cool with patch 8, we can jut skip this for now, and
> > I'll resubmit a separate patch (where I'll deal with duplicates) like
> > later or on Monday?
> Well, before discussing acking or nacking, I just wanted to establish 
> that this is what the code did.  
>
Sure.

> Why don't we do this: let's check in this version, so we can start 
> getting the cpu placement stuff tested.  Then if there's time, you can 
> post patches to do the filtering at the node generation stage rather 
> than the filtering stage.  Does that make sense?
> 
It does to me, and I also think it's important to start seeing how this
deals with some more thorough (automated or not) testing. Especially
considering that changing the generator (and this applies also to the
max-VS-sort thing) ex-post won't imply any change in the algorithm, so
the test results we get with this version will still be valid (at least
conceptually :-D).

Thanks and Regards,
Dario

-- 
<<This happens because I choose it to happen!>> (Raistlin Majere)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dario Faggioli, Ph.D, http://retis.sssup.it/people/faggioli
Senior Software Engineer, Citrix Systems R&D Ltd., Cambridge (UK)

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel