[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Xen-devel] REGRESSION [PATCH v2 08/13] libxc: Check xc_domain_maximum_gpfn for negative return values



On 20/03/15 17:03, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Fri, 2015-03-20 at 11:45 -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
 From 45bd7cd377b0b8364757cc2bc0bd8d6a13523a97 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 14:57:44 -0400
Subject: [PATCH] libxc: Check xc_domain_maximum_gpfn for negative return
  values

Instead of assuming everything is always OK. We stash
the gpfns value as an parameter. Since we use it in three
of places we might as well update xc_domain_maximum_gpfn
to do the right thing.

Suggested-by: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx>
Acked + applied along with the rest of the series, thanks,

This change as unfortunately causes a regression in migration v2, because the fenceposting has changed and the function no longer returns the maximum gpfn. It returns one past the maximum gpfn.

It would appear that migration v2 was the only consumer which actually want the max gpfn.

Can we either rename the function to accurately name the value it returns (although I am out of ideas as to what this might be), or undo the fenceposting change so that it continues to return the value it claims to return.

~Andrew

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


 


Rackspace

Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.