Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v4 2/7] libxl: In libxl_set_vcpuonline check for maximum number of VCPUs against the cpumap.

[Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 04:57:51PM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-03-30 at 11:26 -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > There is no sense in trying to online (or offline) CPUs when the size of
> > cpumap is greater than the maximum number of VCPUs the guest can go to.
> > 
> > As such fail the operation if the count of CPUs to online is greater
> > than what the guest started with. For the offline case we do not
> > check (as the bits are unset in the cpumap) and let it go through.
> > 
> > We coalesce some of the underlaying libxl_set_vcpuonline code
> 
> "underlying"

Whoa! Just to make sure I understand why I used the incorrect word.

I used an verb while I should have used an adjective - which
'underlying' is, right?

> 
> > together to take advantage for the QMP and XenStore ways.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > [v2: constify the libxl_domain and handle libxl_domain_info error]
> > ---
> >  tools/libxl/libxl.c | 70 
> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------
> >  1 file changed, 41 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/tools/libxl/libxl.c b/tools/libxl/libxl.c
> > index 80c7ff6..13a98fd 100644
> > --- a/tools/libxl/libxl.c
> > +++ b/tools/libxl/libxl.c
> > @@ -5442,28 +5442,34 @@ int libxl_domain_get_nodeaffinity(libxl_ctx *ctx, 
> > uint32_t domid,
> >      return 0;
> >  }
> >  
> > +static int libxl__check_max(libxl__gc *gc, const libxl_dominfo *info,
> 
> The name is so generic (max what?) and the implementation so simple I'd
> suggest to just inline the check at the one call site.
> 
> Otherwise looks ok, thanks.
> 
> 

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel