[Libvirt-cim] [PATCH 0 of 2] [RFC] First steps in new processor RASD behavior

[Kaitlin Rupert]

Jay Gagnon wrote:
> Just want to get this out before I start in on the resource add/mod/del stuff, to see if I'm on the right track.  The idea here is that we are not supporting processor pinning, will support scheduling (weight/limit attributes), and are making Processor RASDs one-per-domain.  Does this look sane?
> 

This looks good to me.  +1

Some of the Processor and EAFP tests fail due to these changes, but this 
is because the tests are expecting the InstanceID for the device to be 
<guest name>/<processor id> instead of <guest name>/proc.

The commit log for the second patch is a bit misleading, since you're 
changing device_parsing.c which also impacts Virt_Device.  But 
otherwise, this tests fine for me.

-- 
Kaitlin Rupert
IBM Linux Technology Center
kaitlin at linux.vnet.ibm.com