Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC PATCH 1/3] xl: replace vcpu-set --ignore-host with --ignore-warn

[George Dunlap <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 07/23/2013 03:01 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 12:29:36AM +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
> > On 07/19/2013 04:48 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > > When Xen 4.3 was released we had a discussion whether we should
> > > allow the vcpu-set command to allow the user to set more than
> > > physical CPUs for a guest. The author brought up:
> > >   - Xend used to do it,
> > >   - If a user wants to do it, let them do it,
> > >   - The original author of the change did not realize the
> > >     side-effect his patch caused this and had no intention of changing it.
> > >   - The user can already boot a massively overcommitted guest by
> > >     having a large 'vcpus=' value in the guest config and we allow
> > >     that.
> > >
> > > Since we were close to the release we added --ignore-host parameter
> > > as a mechanism for a user to still set more vCPUs that the physical
> > > machine as a stop-gate.
> > >
> > > This patch removes said option and adds the --ignore-warn option.
> > > By default the user is allowed to set as many vCPUs as they would like.
> > > We will print out a warning if the value is higher than the physical
> > > CPU count. The --ignore-warn will silence said warning.
> > I think this is a good change in general, but I don't think the name
> > is quite right.  You're not ignoring the warnings, you're turning
> > them off.  Maybe make the function argument "warn", and the option
> > "--no-warn"?
> --silence?
Well there is some --quiet, but I suppose that generally means don't 
tell me *anything*, which is not what we want either.  I would think 
--silence would mean about the same thing.
 -George


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