From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Olaf Hering Subject: Re: inaccurate dirty_count from XEN_DOMCTL_SHADOW_OP Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2017 11:46:29 +0100 Message-ID: <20170322104628.GA21170@aepfle.de> References: <20170321095037.GA22242@aepfle.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1242854526561599895==" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20170321095037.GA22242@aepfle.de> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Sender: "Xen-devel" To: xen-devel@lists.xen.org List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org --===============1242854526561599895== Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="OgqxwSJOaUobr8KG" Content-Disposition: inline --OgqxwSJOaUobr8KG Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline On Tue, Mar 21, Olaf Hering wrote: > I wonder if the usage of xc_shadow_control is correct. The testing was > done with a xen-4.4 based dom0, I will verify with staging once I find > the time. It does work with xen-4.4, but fails with staging. Did the xc_shadow_control API change at some point? Olaf --OgqxwSJOaUobr8KG Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iF0EARECAB0WIQSkRyP6Rn//f03pRUBdQqD6ppg2fgUCWNJWAAAKCRBdQqD6ppg2 fmBOAJ9lvC4lscrzF54soEqFB7XVm84MIQCg1tPenPlT45NSuephZbHSX3QAdG0= =mit+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --OgqxwSJOaUobr8KG-- --===============1242854526561599895== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: inline X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18KWGVuLWRldmVs IG1haWxpbmcgbGlzdApYZW4tZGV2ZWxAbGlzdHMueGVuLm9yZwpodHRwczovL2xpc3RzLnhlbi5v cmcveGVuLWRldmVsCg== --===============1242854526561599895==--