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

Re: [libvirt] [PATCH REPOST 3/5] admin: Introduce virAdmServerGetClientProcessingControls



On 11.05.2016 15:39, Erik Skultety wrote:
>>> diff --git a/daemon/admin_server.c b/daemon/admin_server.c
>>> index 9f40688..79437a1 100644
>>> --- a/daemon/admin_server.c
>>> +++ b/daemon/admin_server.c
>>> @@ -311,3 +311,44 @@ int adminClientClose(virNetServerClientPtr client,
>>>      virNetServerClientClose(client);
>>>      return 0;
>>>  }
>>> +
>>> +int
>>> +adminServerGetClientProcessingControls(virNetServerPtr srv,
>>> +                                       virTypedParameterPtr *params,
>>> +                                       int *nparams,
>>> +                                       unsigned int flags)
>>> +{
>>> +    int ret = -1;
>>> +    int maxparams = 0;
>>> +    virTypedParameterPtr tmpparams = NULL;
>>> +
>>> +    virCheckFlags(0, -1);
>>> +
>>> +    if (virTypedParamsAddUInt(&tmpparams, nparams, &maxparams,
>>> +                              VIR_SERVER_CLIENTS_MAX,
>>> +                              virNetServerGetMaxClients(srv)) < 0)
>>> +        goto cleanup;
>>> +
>>> +    if (virTypedParamsAddUInt(&tmpparams, nparams, &maxparams,
>>> +                              VIR_SERVER_CLIENTS_CURRENT,
>>> +                              virNetServerGetCurrentClients(srv)) < 0)
>>> +        goto cleanup;
>>> +
>>> +    if (virTypedParamsAddUInt(&tmpparams, nparams, &maxparams,
>>> +                              VIR_SERVER_CLIENTS_UNAUTH_MAX,
>>> +                              virNetServerGetMaxUnauthClients(srv)) < 0)
>>> +        goto cleanup;
>>> +
>>> +    if (virTypedParamsAddUInt(&tmpparams, nparams, &maxparams,
>>> +                              VIR_SERVER_CLIENTS_UNAUTH_CURRENT,
>>> +                              virNetServerGetCurrentUnauthClients(srv)) < 0)
>>> +        goto cleanup;
>>
>>
>> Well, all of these are type of size_t in our implementation. Should we
>> make these ULL?
>>
> 
> I don't think that's necessary. In my understanding, this is strongly
> affected by the max number of allowed file descriptors per process, and
> since 'fd' is int, ULL would be a slight overkill and think UINT will
> suffice.
> 
> I will of course fix your other notes to this patch/
> 
> Erik
> 

Okay. I think you have covered all my concerns then. ACK series.

Michal


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