Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2018 11:28:55 -0800 From: Peter Grehan <grehan@freebsd.org> To: "Rodney W. Grimes" <freebsd-rwg@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net> Cc: freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Call for testing bhyve cpu topology additions Message-ID: <db620e09-ec96-7931-2776-e6477c5a3d8d@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <201803071920.w27JK9JQ055368@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net> References: <201803071920.w27JK9JQ055368@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> I shall iterate again, this change makes no change to what the guests > sees if you use the old method sysctl hw.vmm.topology.cores_per_package > or hw.vmm.topology.threads_per_core to set these values, it is > purely a interface enhancement that makes these tuneables easy > to access from userland bhyve(8). Those sysctls were an undocumented workaround with no error checking. You are making this a documented part of bhyve, > A guest can not tell the diffence in what way these are set. > If hw.vmm.topology.* needs testing thats not on me, that is > an existing problem, and one that has existed for far too long. Ah, no, the testing is on you, not the user community. >> You can easily download an eval of Windows 10 to try this out with. >> You do not (and have never) required ATA support to run Windows on bhyve. > > I have made a call for testing, whats your issue? > Are you trying to force me to do that testing? At a minimum, you are expected to test changes that you expect to commit. > And I consider this change rather trivial and with near 0 risk, You've never made a commit to bhyve but somehow feel qualified to make risk assessments. >> And why the rush ? I'm yet to understand what the urgency for this >> work is ? Who is demanding it ? > > The users have been wanting this for well over a year, it was > a frequently requested item when I wrote it. It is long overdue. Right, so 3 weeks for MFC is perfectly acceptable in that case. > You seem to be raising a bar higher than any other part of > FreeBSD for this rather simple user command enhancement, > can I ask what your objection is? The fact that you seem to think testing this is someone else's problem, in a subsystem where rigorous testing is a requirement. later, Peter.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?db620e09-ec96-7931-2776-e6477c5a3d8d>