Re: Question about vcpu_avail

[Michal Novotny <minovotn@redhat.com>]

On 11/24/2009 04:20 PM, Keir Fraser wrote:
> On 24/11/2009 15:08, "Michal Novotny"<minovotn@redhat.com>  wrote:
>
>    
>>> Yeah, I think you get it. In your example: if the user specifies maxvcpus=4,
>>> vcpus=2 then xm turns that into vcpus=4, vcpu_avail=3 before sending it to
>>> xend.
>>>
>>>        
>> Right, so, you mean that I should implement it into `xm` command itself
>> and not XenD ? Well, what about people using eg. libvirt with upstream
>> Xen? This way it should not be working since XM is not used... right?
>>      
> If you add new config fields to xend, then libvirt callers are going to need
> to be modified to expose them to users, aren't they (e.g., in a GUI or
> whatever)? If the callers need modifying anyway, then they can just be
> modified in a similar way to what I propose for xm, and deconstruct into the
> config primitives that xend already understands.
>
>   -- Keir
>    

Well, the thing is whether it isn't better to be added to Xend itself 
instead of xm ? This could avoid further modifications. Maybe the 
callers have to be modified a little but I am not sure.

-- Michal

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