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

[George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 8:17 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
<konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 06:52:44PM +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Good point. In which case I think --no-warn and no short option
> makes the most sense.

TBH the no-warning option seems a bit unnecessary, and a part of me
thinks just making it possible to do without an override should be
enough.

 -George

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