Comment 6 for bug 1709877

------- Comment From <email address hidden> 2017-09-13 00:51 EDT-------
(In reply to comment #12)
> There is some noise when applying this to Xenial.
> Nothing too big, but I think at least
> commit 5555dc0d7fe0267e2ff6e5a9625164f2896f9cc5 (HEAD)
> Author: Peter Krempa <email address hidden>
> Date: Tue Sep 13 14:28:33 2016 +0200
>
> util: numa: Remove impossible error handling
>
> Would be needed to apply better, yet OTOH the code back in Xenial might not
> fulfill this condition.
>
> Not rocket science but I see some work and regression potential which means
> for the SRU I'd like to have a really good case.
> In that sense I wonder how "real" or "artificial" a system with an empty
> numa node is.
> Is that a thing that really exists outside of a lab?
> If so great - lets work on the SRU and please help me to add a SRU Template
> with your arguments to make a case for it convincing the SRU Team.

There can a real possibility of having a memory less numa node as a valid config of system provided the system does not have full config(maximum memory possible for that system), which can cause these functional issues that can be resolved by having this fix.

More over host numa node config affecting guest functional is unacceptable, so it is good to have this fix applied, Thanks.

Regards,
-Satheesh