From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dieter Bloms Subject: Re: [Xen-users] xl doesn't honour the parameter cpu_weight from my config file while xm does honour it Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 20:26:33 +0200 Message-ID: <20120424182633.GA20286@bloms.de> References: <1335197251.22133.5.camel@Solace> <20120423193518.GA16134@bloms.de> <1335247525.2397.4.camel@Abyss> <20120424121402.GA19331@bloms.de> <1335272980.4347.122.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com> <20120424143329.GB19331@bloms.de> <1335279087.4347.186.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com> <20374.52925.940533.95590@mariner.uk.xensource.com> <1335284131.4347.216.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com> <20374.53940.224705.242658@mariner.uk.xensource.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20374.53940.224705.242658@mariner.uk.xensource.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Ian Jackson Cc: George Dunlap , Dario Faggioli , Ian Campbell , Dieter Bloms , xen-devel List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org Hi, On Tue, Apr 24, Ian Jackson wrote: > Perhaps it would be better to have a single sched_params struct which > contained all the parameters needed for any scheduler, and simply have > them ignored by libxl for schedulers we're not using. my first version has this type of design and then someone said that this was not a good design and I have to use union with libxl_sched_*_params. Anyway I think it is a good design to have one struct with all parameters and I'am willing to implement it. -- = Gru=DF Dieter -- I do not get viruses because I do not use MS software. If you use Outlook then please do not put my email address in your address-book so that WHEN you get a virus it won't use my address in the >>From field.