[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [libvirt] [PATCH 6/9] conf: extract ignoring of inactive vcpu pinning information




On 02/24/2016 09:22 AM, Peter Krempa wrote:
> Introduce VIR_DOMAIN_DEF_FEATURE_OFFLINE_CPUPIN domain feature flag

Should it be VCPUPIN ?

> whcih will allow to skip ignoring of the pinning information for
> hypervisor drivers which will want to implement forward-pinning of
> vcpus.
> ---
>  src/conf/domain_conf.c | 28 +++++++++++++++++++++++-----
>  src/conf/domain_conf.h |  1 +
>  2 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/src/conf/domain_conf.c b/src/conf/domain_conf.c
> index 101fae2..4220448 100644
> --- a/src/conf/domain_conf.c
> +++ b/src/conf/domain_conf.c
> @@ -4215,6 +4215,25 @@ virDomainDeviceDefPostParseInternal(virDomainDeviceDefPtr dev,
>  }
> 
> 

A little intro would be nice...

> +static void
> +virDomainDefRemoveOfflineVcpuPin(virDomainDefPtr def)
> +{
> +    size_t i;
> +    virDomainVcpuInfoPtr vcpu;
> +
> +    for (i = 0; i < virDomainDefGetVcpusMax(def); i++) {
> +        vcpu = virDomainDefGetVcpu(def, i);
> +
> +        if (!vcpu->online && vcpu->cpumask) {
> +            virBitmapFree(vcpu->cpumask);
> +            vcpu->cpumask = NULL;
> +
> +            VIR_WARN("Ignoring unsupported vcpupin for offline vcpu '%zu'", i);

Is/was this for debugging?  Do we really want to WARN or just go with INFO?

> +        }
> +    }
> +}
> +
> +

[...]


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]