From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Jan Beulich" Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] libxl: add stdvga video memory setting with upstream qemu Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 12:50:50 +0100 Message-ID: <537A0C3A020000780001391F@mail.emea.novell.com> References: <1399640679-23702-1-git-send-email-fabio.fantoni@m2r.biz> <1400169644.883.1.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com> <5379C47C.4070406@m2r.biz> <21369.60932.192728.638237@mariner.uk.xensource.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <21369.60932.192728.638237@mariner.uk.xensource.com> Content-Disposition: inline List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com, Fabio Fantoni Cc: anthony.perard@citrix.com, xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, Ian Campbell , Stefano.Stabellini@eu.citrix.com List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org >>> On 19.05.14 at 13:41, wrote: > Fabio Fantoni writes ("Re: [PATCH v2] libxl: add stdvga video memory setting > with upstream qemu"): >> Il 15/05/2014 18:00, Ian Campbell ha scritto: >> > Acked + applied. I reworded the commit message a bit to: >> > libxl: add stdvga video memory setting with upstream qemu >> > >> > Currently we set the stdvga video memory with qemu-traditional only, > add the >> > necessary settings for qemu upstream too. >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Fabio Fantoni >> > Acked-by: Ian Campbell >> > >> > >> > >> Thanks. >> I think that this patch can be also backported to xen 4.4. > > I think this falls on the bugfix side of the line, but: > > I worry that it might cause regressions in existing setups, because it > changes the interpretation of the domain config file (from a incorrect > to a correct interpretation, but that is still a problem for a > backport). > > So I would be inclined not to backport this one. I've added Jan, the > hypervisor-side stable tree maintainer, in case he has a different > view. Help me understand the implications on the guest that this changed (corrected) interpretation of the config file would have: Would the guest see differing resources between reboots? Would such differences also surface post-migration (which would pretty clearly make this a no-go for a backport)? Jan