[libvirt] [PATCH 2/2] FreeBSD: stub out CPU affinity functions.

[Peter Krempa]

On 12/17/12 18:25, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 09:09:52PM +0400, Roman Bogorodskiy wrote:
>>    Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 06:47:56PM +0400, Roman Bogorodskiy wrote:
>>>> ---
>>>>   src/util/processinfo.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>   1 file changed, 22 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/src/util/processinfo.c b/src/util/processinfo.c
>>>> index b1db049..4822bcc 100644
>>>> --- a/src/util/processinfo.c
>>>> +++ b/src/util/processinfo.c
>>>> @@ -168,6 +168,28 @@ realloc:
>>>>       return 0;
>>>>   }
>>>>
>>>> +#elif defined(__FreeBSD__)
>>>> +
>>>> +int virProcessInfoSetAffinity(pid_t pid ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED,
>>>> +                              virBitmapPtr map ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED)
>>>> +{
>>>> +    return 0;
>>>> +}
>>>
>>> Hmm, I'm somewhat loathe to be pretending that this works.
>>>
>>> IMHO, we should look at 'map' and if it is all-1s then
>>> we should accept it trivially. If it is not all-1s then
>>> we should raise an error so the user knows their requested
>>> config was not honoured
>>
>> The reasoning behind this change is, as subject says, provide a stub
>> while there's no complete implementation available. I've been using
>> it for a couple of weeks and didn't notice any problems.
>>
>> Would not it make sense to just throw a warning or not critical error to
>> user so he knows there's no affinity? I was planning to create a
>> full-feature implementation of that after I'm done with the networking
>> support.
>
> Ok, since you're planning on implementing this properly, I'll accept
> this patch as is for now

As I said in my review, I don't like this approach even if it's going to 
be improved in the future. Until it's approved we should go with Dan's 
idea about accepting all-1-map and erroring out on everything else.

I will add that to this patch and push it tomorrow.

Peter