From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jim Fehlig Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] fix freemem loop Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2015 10:58:22 -0700 Message-ID: <54F9EABE.7030503@suse.com> References: <1425577775.14353.1.camel@citrix.com> <1425618783.5Ob3InrGpG@mlatimer1.dnsdhcp.provo.novell.com> <1425635204.14353.22.camel@citrix.com> <1425636822.14353.32.camel@citrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Stefano Stabellini Cc: Wei Liu , xen-devel@lists.xen.org, Ian Jackson , Ian Campbell , Mike Latimer List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org Stefano Stabellini wrote: > On Fri, 6 Mar 2015, Ian Campbell wrote: > >> This is missing my point. >> >> We need to consider the case of a modified libvirt with the old, broken, >> libxl too. >> > > For that case, we might want to make sure that the new timeout passed to > libxl_wait_for_memory_target is not lower than the overall libvirt > timeout today (libxl_wait_for_free_memory+libxl_wait_for_memory_target). > Currently in libvirt, libxl_wait_for_free_memory+libxl_wait_for_memory_target = 11sec. But IMO it will be fine to replace that with 'libxl_wait_for_memory_target(ctx, 0, 10)', as you did for xl in 3/4. A modified libvirt with unmodified libxl would behave the same as a modified xl with unmodified libxl. Regards, Jim