From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ryan Harper Subject: [PATCH] 2nd try: 0/2 VCPU creation and allocation Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 10:13:42 -0500 Message-ID: <20051011151342.GR17358@us.ibm.com> References: <20051010151651.GK17358@us.ibm.com> <20051010152821.GN17358@us.ibm.com> <3f428c67eaeb9dd543c246e55a156fd3@cl.cam.ac.uk> <20051010160538.GO17358@us.ibm.com> <20051010162354.GP17358@us.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Keir Fraser Cc: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org * Keir Fraser [2005-10-10 11:34]: > > On 10 Oct 2005, at 17:23, Ryan Harper wrote: > > >OK, that makes sense. I'll turn VCPUOP_create into set_max_vcpus(max) > >which will create vcpus 1-(max-1). Any preference on the hypercall > >name? Does set_max_vcpus() still make sense if it is also creating > >vcpus? > > > >How about DOM0_CREATEVCPUS and > > do_createvcpus(struct domain* d, unsigned int max_vcpus). > > I'm not fussed. I guess I have a slight preference for the latter > (createvcpus). The first patch creates a new dom0_op, DOM0_VCPUSINCREASE, which will create VCPU 1 to (limit-1) in the target domain. The max_vcpus value is gone as is the VCPUOP_create. The second patch is the same as before. -- Ryan Harper Software Engineer; Linux Technology Center IBM Corp., Austin, Tx (512) 838-9253 T/L: 678-9253 ryanh@us.ibm.com