From: Ryan Harper <ryanh@us.ibm.com>
To: Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@cl.cam.ac.uk>
Cc: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] 0/2 VCPU creation and allocation
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 11:05:38 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20051010160538.GO17358@us.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3f428c67eaeb9dd543c246e55a156fd3@cl.cam.ac.uk>
* Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@cl.cam.ac.uk> [2005-10-10 10:56]:
>
> On 10 Oct 2005, at 16:28, Ryan Harper wrote:
>
> >>Either we should take set_max_vcpus, and have that implicitly do the
> >>work of VCPUOP_create, or we should take VCPUOP_create (callable only
> >>by domain0) and have that implicitly increase max_vcpus for the
> >>subject
> >>domain.
> >
> >OK. I'll re-work VCPUOP_create to be callable only by dom0 and
> >auto-increment max_vcpus.
>
> Do you even need a max_vcpus variable? Surely the appropriate check is
> implicit in VCPUOP_initialise detecting whether or not the relevant
> VCPU has been created?
I was going to ensure ordered VCPU creation. Without something like
vcpuid < max_vcpus+1, and increment on successful creation, one can
create vcpus in any order, 1,5,7, 10. I don't think it *should* matter
but I've not looked elsewhere through the code to see if there are any
other areas assuming all struct vcpu* being valid between 0 and n in
the d->vcpus[] array.
--
Ryan Harper
Software Engineer; Linux Technology Center
IBM Corp., Austin, Tx
(512) 838-9253 T/L: 678-9253
ryanh@us.ibm.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-10-10 16:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-10-10 15:16 [PATCH] 0/2 VCPU creation and allocation Ryan Harper
2005-10-10 15:29 ` Keir Fraser
2005-10-10 15:28 ` Ryan Harper
2005-10-10 16:01 ` Keir Fraser
2005-10-10 16:05 ` Ryan Harper [this message]
2005-10-10 16:17 ` Keir Fraser
2005-10-10 16:23 ` Ryan Harper
2005-10-10 16:39 ` Keir Fraser
2005-10-11 15:13 ` [PATCH] 2nd try: " Ryan Harper
2005-10-11 15:15 ` [PATCH] 2nd try: 1/2 " Ryan Harper
2005-10-11 15:16 ` [PATCH] 2nd try: 2/2 " Ryan Harper
2005-10-12 16:10 ` Keir Fraser
2005-10-12 16:15 ` Ryan Harper
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2005-10-10 15:31 [PATCH] 0/2 " Ian Pratt
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20051010160538.GO17358@us.ibm.com \
--to=ryanh@us.ibm.com \
--cc=Keir.Fraser@cl.cam.ac.uk \
--cc=xen-devel@lists.xensource.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.