From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH for 4.6 v2 3/3] xl/libxl: disallow saving a
 guest with vNUMA configured
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 12:04:53 +0100
Message-ID: <1441883093.24450.377.camel@citrix.com>
References: <1441818218-5414-1-git-send-email-wei.liu2@citrix.com>
	<1441818218-5414-4-git-send-email-wei.liu2@citrix.com>
	<55F07F2C.6050803@citrix.com>
	<20150909202100.GA25704@zion.uk.xensource.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
Received: from mail6.bemta14.messagelabs.com ([193.109.254.103])
	by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <prvs=688ac6705=Ian.Campbell@citrix.com>)
	id 1ZZzf4-0000Xf-B4
	for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Thu, 10 Sep 2015 11:05:02 +0000
In-Reply-To: <20150909202100.GA25704@zion.uk.xensource.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
Cc: Xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>, Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On Wed, 2015-09-09 at 21:21 +0100, Wei Liu wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 07:49:16PM +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> > On 09/09/15 18:03, Wei Liu wrote:
> > > This is due to migration v2 frame record doesn't contain node
> > > information.
> > 
> > This isn't a migration v2 bug, and it was similarly non-functional with
> > legacy migration.  It was yet another oversight with the vNUMA work.
> > 
> 
> Indeed. I mentioned that in v1 patch but dropped it in v2 -- legacy
> migration is gone anyway.

I think it is important in these cases to understand if this is a
functional regression vs 4.5 or not, so it ought to be mentioned.

> > Isn't this information available in the domain configuration for the
> > domain
> > sent in the xl header? (That layer violation also need removing).
> > 
> 
> Yes. But restoring a guest takes a path  different from guest creation
> to populate guest pages.
> 
> > Finally, your phrasing is somewhat unclear.  I would recommend "The
> > migration stream does not preserve node information" as a clearer
> > alternative.
> > 
> 
> Fine by me.

I'm expecting a v3 then.