Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 00 of 11 v5] NUMA aware credit scheduling

[Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

George Dunlap writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 00 of 11 v5] NUMA aware credit 
scheduling"):
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 2:14 PM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > - 1 and 2 touch tools/, but don't have a tools maintainer ack yet

I'm happy for 1 to have my ack provided that Jan's comment on it is
addressed.

> > - 1 touches the public interface (even if only the one affecting
> >   the tools)
> ...
> > - 5 has a public interface change again
> 
> I thought the policy was that the tools & the hypervisor have to
> remain in lockstep -- only libxl and the kernel interfaces need to be
> backwards-compatible, right?  Do either of these changes affect those?

In the past we have tried to be somewhat backward-compatible with
libxc but now that we have libxl I think we can relax that.

I think the changes in 01/11 and 02/11 are fine from that point of
view.

05/11 has a hypercall API change, but it's a tools-only interface so
that is OK.  The tools/ side is all tools/flask/ and has Daniel's ack
so that's OK.

I think 05/11 should explain in a documentation comment what it means
for a domain to have a node affinity.  Specifically it's not clear
from the docs there whether it's a hint to the hypervisor, or a hard
requirement, and what semantic restrictions there might be on setting
affinities.

Ian.

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