Re: [PATCH RESEND v2 2/2] xen: enable vnuma for PV guest

[David Vrabel <david.vrabel@citrix.com>]

On 19/11/13 15:19, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 02:56:41PM +0000, David Vrabel wrote:
>> The relevant bits in dummy_numa_init are in the error path of
>> xen_numa_init().
> 
> That seems the wrong place to do it. The top layer calls 
> in each of the numa implementations and then falls back to
> the dummy.

Think of it as not the dummy, but Xen setting the NUMA configuration up
with only a single node.

The useful bits in dummy_numa_init() are two calls to standard functions
for use by *_numa_init() calls so it just seems easier all round to just
call then directly than add a dependancy on dummy_numa_init().

> Calling from within the implementation on something that is eventually
> done on the upper level already is not right.

>From the point of view of the caller, it does the right thing.  NUMA is
setup.

>> I do think this approach (using the provided API to setup the single
>> (dummy) node), is preferable to calling dummy_numa_init().
> 
> Doesn't it do the same thing? And also what about if you the user
> provides fakenuma?

I don't know what "fakenuma" is refering to.

>> If I thought the hypervisor ABI was finalized, I'd be happy with this
>> series as-is -- the remaining issues are superficial.
> 
> That reads to me as an Ack, but I know you like to have it stated
> explicitly - so could you state the proper tag please?

"If I thought the hypervisor ABI was finalized..." is a pretty big "if"
so I have deliberately /not/ given an ack or a reviewed tag but I've
tried to be clear than I think the Linux side is now good enough (except
for any changes for any updates to the hypervisor ABI).

David