Re: [PATCH 2/3] xend: Add multiple cpumasks support

[Ryan Harper <ryanh@us.ibm.com>]

* Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@cl.cam.ac.uk> [2006-08-15 17:36]:
> 
> 
> 
> On 14/8/06 11:20 pm, "Ryan Harper" <ryanh@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
> >> Either Keir's cpu[X] = "Y" approach or my cpu = [ "A","B","C" ] approach
> >> seem workable.
> >> 
> >> Keir's approach is rather ill defined if someone tries using both cpu=
> >> and cpu[X]= in the same config file, but I don't see that as a big
> >> problem.  Take your pick :-)
> > 
> > I'm leaning toward the list notation since I already have code that
> > parses that properly.
> 
> Am I mistaken or aren't both the above forms basically the same (in both
> cases 'cpu' is a list of strings)? I like this form, even if we cook it down
> in xm into a different sxp syntax (if you want to avoid python lists in the
> sxp).

I'm not really opposed to any particular way.  IMO, I think that having a
single config variable, cpus, is simpler, and more compact, for
instance, when passing a one-time value on the command line.  Certainly
cpu[X]="Y" is easier to understand, but I don't think it is a far
stretch to list form.

If we went with cpu[X]="Y", would we do away with cpus?  If not, would
a cpus value map to cpu[0]?  And what about 'cpu', which currently is
prepended to the cpus value, which retains the behavior of pinning
VCPU0?

I'm about to resend the patches which currently parse the list form,
[ "a", "b", "c" ].  If you are set on cpu[X]="Y" and we know how we want
to handled the cases I mentioned above, I can rework to suit.  My
preference is the list form which has the benefit of working code
behind it.

-- 
Ryan Harper
Software Engineer; Linux Technology Center
IBM Corp., Austin, Tx
(512) 838-9253   T/L: 678-9253
ryanh@us.ibm.com