From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: George Dunlap Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] xl: replace vcpu-set --ignore-host with --ignore-warn Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 18:52:44 +0100 Message-ID: <51EEC2EC.8060301@eu.citrix.com> References: <1374248938-11232-1-git-send-email-konrad.wilk@oracle.com> <1374248938-11232-2-git-send-email-konrad.wilk@oracle.com> <51EDC060.6040608@eu.citrix.com> <20130723140114.GC3795@phenom.dumpdata.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20130723140114.GC3795@phenom.dumpdata.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: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk Cc: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk , xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com, Ian.Campbell@citrix.com List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org 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. -George