* Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx> [2005-10-10 10:56]:
>
> On 10 Oct 2005, at 16:28, Ryan Harper wrote:
>
> >>Either we should take set_max_vcpus, and have that implicitly do the
> >>work of VCPUOP_create, or we should take VCPUOP_create (callable only
> >>by domain0) and have that implicitly increase max_vcpus for the
> >>subject
> >>domain.
> >
> >OK. I'll re-work VCPUOP_create to be callable only by dom0 and
> >auto-increment max_vcpus.
>
> Do you even need a max_vcpus variable? Surely the appropriate check is
> implicit in VCPUOP_initialise detecting whether or not the relevant
> VCPU has been created?
I was going to ensure ordered VCPU creation. Without something like
vcpuid < max_vcpus+1, and increment on successful creation, one can
create vcpus in any order, 1,5,7, 10. I don't think it *should* matter
but I've not looked elsewhere through the code to see if there are any
other areas assuming all struct vcpu* being valid between 0 and n in
the d->vcpus[] array.
--
Ryan Harper
Software Engineer; Linux Technology Center
IBM Corp., Austin, Tx
(512) 838-9253 T/L: 678-9253
ryanh@xxxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
Home