[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v7 2/5] sysctl: Add sysctl interface for querying PCI topology
- To: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>
- From: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 09:13:09 -0400
- Cc: elena.ufimtseva@xxxxxxxxxx, wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx, ian.campbell@xxxxxxxxxx, stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, dario.faggioli@xxxxxxxxxx, ian.jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, keir@xxxxxxx, dgdegra@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Delivery-date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 13:25:15 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xen.org>
On 04/21/2015 09:14 AM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
On 21/04/15 13:56, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
On 04/21/2015 03:01 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
--- a/docs/misc/xsm-flask.txt
+++ b/docs/misc/xsm-flask.txt
@@ -121,6 +121,7 @@ __HYPERVISOR_sysctl (xen/include/public/sysctl.h)
* XEN_SYSCTL_cpupool_op
* XEN_SYSCTL_scheduler_op
* XEN_SYSCTL_coverage_op
+ * XEN_SYSCTL_pcitopoinfo
No additions to this list are permitted. Either the new sub-op is
disaggregation safe (which it looks to be), or it can't be accepted.
True, it *is* safe, but why then cputopoinfo and numainfo are in this
list? They look to be safe as well.
This list includes "not yet audited". It is quite likely that some
entries in the list are safe.
fwiw, neither cputopo nor numainfo are currently safe for very large
systems.
Why would safety of an operation depend on system size? And how are
these two unsafe? (Because maybe then PCI topology query is unsafe in
the same manner)
-boris
-boris
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
