Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 12/12] xen/domain: Allocate d->vcpu[] in domain_create()

[Wei Liu <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 09:03:36AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 29.08.18 at 16:40, <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > For ARM, the call to arch_domain_create() needs to have completed before
> > domain_max_vcpus() will return the correct upper bound.
> > 
> > For each arch's dom0's, drop the temporary max_vcpus parameter, and 
> > allocation
> > of dom0->vcpu.
> > 
> > With d->max_vcpus now correctly configured before evtchn_init(), the poll 
> > mask
> > can be constructed suitably for the domain, rather than for the worst-case
> > setting.
> > 
> > Due to the evtchn_init() fixes, it no longer calls domain_max_vcpus(), and
> > ARM's two implementations of vgic_max_vcpus() no longer need work around the
> > out-of-order call.
> > 
> > From this point on, d->max_vcpus and d->vcpus[] are valid for any domain 
> > which
> > can be looked up by domid.
> > 
> > The XEN_DOMCTL_max_vcpus hypercall is modified to reject any call attempt 
> > with
> > max != d->max_vcpus, which does match the older semantics (not that it is
> > obvious from the code).  The logic to allocate d->vcpu[] is dropped, but at
> > this point the hypercall still needs making to allocate each vcpu.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Acked-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
> in principle, but as said before the lack of renaming of the domctl
> makes my ack dependent upon some other REST maintainer
> agreeing with your position there (the more that you've added
> the comment to the implementation rather than the public header).

I don't see much value in renaming something that is due to be removed
soon.

Wei.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel