[Xen-devel] Memory hot-add and c/s 20892: bad interaction?

[Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jan, Yunhong,

I was just thinking about xen-unstable:20892, which exposes real current
max_mfn to guests, so that they can more accurately clamp their m2p address
translations.

I was wondering whether this changeset is actually a bad idea in light of
memory hot-add, as now implemented by Yunhong? I would imagine this can mean
that max_mfn is now dynamic, and can increase in value after boot. So would
20892 thus leave all existing guests (e.g., dom0!) broken after a hot-add
which adds new highest RAM addresses?

 -- Keir



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel