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

Re: [libvirt] [PATCH] qemu: Take all PHBs into account while calculating memlock limits



On 07/03/2017 09:51 AM, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-06-30 at 13:56 +0530, Shivaprasad G Bhat wrote:
>> -        /* TODO: Detect at runtime once we start using more than just
>> -         *       the default PCI Host Bridge */
>> -        nPCIHostBridges = 1;
>> +        for (i = 0; i < def->ncontrollers; i++) {
>> +            if (def->controllers[i]->type != VIR_DOMAIN_CONTROLLER_TYPE_PCI ||
>> +                def->controllers[i]->model != VIR_DOMAIN_CONTROLLER_MODEL_PCI_ROOT) {
>> +                continue;
>> +            }
>> +            nPCIHostBridges++;
>> +        }
> 
> Just to be on the safe side, we should probably make sure the
> pci-root controller is actually a PHB by looking at modelName
> as well, like:
> 
>   for (i = 0; i < def->ncontrollers; i++) {
>       virDomainControllerDefPtr cont = def->controllers[i];
> 
>       if (cont->type != VIR_DOMAIN_CONTROLLER_TYPE_PCI ||
>           cont->model != VIR_DOMAIN_CONTROLLER_MODEL_PCI_ROOT ||
>           cont->opts.pciopts->modelName != VIR_DOMAIN_CONTROLLER_PCI_MODEL_NAME_SPAPR_PCI_HOST_BRIDGE) {
>           continue;
>       }
> 
>       nPCIHostBridges++;
>   }
> 
> Boy, that model name sure is a mouthful[1].
> 
> I think we might have enough occurrences of this pattern to
> warrant the creation of a virDomainControllerIsPCIHostBridge()
> helper function, which you could then use in your patch.
> 
> That said, it might be smarter to do so in a follow-up cleanup
> commit in order not to invalidate existing Reviewed-by tags.
> Laine, what would be your preference?

Either is fine with me.


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