From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ian Campbell Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] libxl_set_memory_target: retain the same maxmem offset on top of the current target Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2015 14:05:18 +0000 Message-ID: <1425305118.21151.36.camel@citrix.com> References: <1425041148-31034-1-git-send-email-stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com> <20150302113637.GB11855@zion.uk.xensource.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20150302113637.GB11855@zion.uk.xensource.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Wei Liu Cc: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com, dslutz@verizon.com, Stefano Stabellini List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Mon, 2015-03-02 at 11:36 +0000, Wei Liu wrote: > On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 12:45:47PM +0000, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > > In libxl_set_memory_target when setting the new maxmem, retain the same > > offset on top of the current target. In the future the offset will > > include memory allocated by QEMU for rom files. > > > > Sorry for not having mentioned this earlier. > > I think the behaviour of this API is changed now (for good reason). > > Ian and Ian, do want need a #define in libxl.h to mark such change? I'm not sure, but I don't think that changes to the internal calculations regarding overheads count as a libxl ABI change. By analogy we don't break ABI/API if Xen happens to need an extra page of memory to deal with a guest. Other than Wei's comment about initialising the dominfo this looks good to me.