From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Chen, Tiejun" <tiejun.chen@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [v10][PATCH 11/16] tools/libxl: detect and avoid
 conflicts with RDM
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 23:42:41 +0800
Message-ID: <55AE6871.6070903@intel.com>
References: <1437373023-14884-1-git-send-email-tiejun.chen@intel.com>
	<1437373023-14884-12-git-send-email-tiejun.chen@intel.com>
	<21932.63595.566823.211293@mariner.uk.xensource.com>
	<21934.8684.318670.874156@mariner.uk.xensource.com>
	<55AE272A.4020306@intel.com>
	<21934.10490.615041.203428@mariner.uk.xensource.com>
	<55AE2BB1.9030604@intel.com>
	<21934.11410.844215.554291@mariner.uk.xensource.com>
	<55AE30D4.8000009@intel.com>
	<21934.15393.528332.534956@mariner.uk.xensource.com>
	<55AE492D.7080204@intel.com>
	<21934.24721.304399.773580@mariner.uk.xensource.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
In-Reply-To: <21934.24721.304399.773580@mariner.uk.xensource.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com>
Cc: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>, Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>, Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>, xen-devel@lists.xen.org
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On 2015/7/21 23:09, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Chen, Tiejun writes ("Re: [v10][PATCH 11/16] tools/libxl: detect and avoid conflicts with RDM"):
>> +static void
>> +add_rdm_entry(libxl__gc *gc, libxl_domain_config *d_config,
>> +              uint64_t rdm_start, uint64_t rdm_size, int rdm_policy)
>> +{
>> +    d_config->num_rdms++;
>> +    d_config->rdms = libxl__realloc(NOGC, d_config->rdms,
>> +                            d_config->num_rdms * sizeof(libxl_device_rdm));
>> +
>> +    d_config->rdms[d_config->num_rdms - 1].start = rdm_start;
>> +    d_config->rdms[d_config->num_rdms - 1].size = rdm_size;
>> +    d_config->rdms[d_config->num_rdms - 1].policy = rdm_policy;
>> +}
>
>
> But, I wrote:
>
>     Can I suggest a function
>
>        void add_rdm_entry(libxl__gc *gc, libxl_domain_config *d_config,
>                      uint64_t rdm_start, uint64_t rdm_size, int rdm_policy)
>
>     which assumes that d_config->num_rdms is set correctly, and increments
>     it ?
>
>     (Please put the increment at the end so that the assignments are to
>     ->rdms[d_config->num_rdms], or perhaps make a convenience alias.)
>
> Note the last paragraph.
>
> This is now the third time I have posted that text.  It is the fifth
> request or clarification I have had to make about this very small
> area.  I have to say that I'm finding this rather frustrating.

Sorry, I just ignore the line in brackets since I always think this kind 
of thing is often not a big deal, and next time I should pay more 
attention to the (). But indeed, before I post this whole patch online I 
also picked up this chunk of code to ask you to take a look that. This 
manner means I'm not very sure if I'm addressing this properly. But I 
didn't get a further response, so I guess that should work for you and 
then I posted the whole online.

Now back on our problem,

static void
add_rdm_entry(libxl__gc *gc, libxl_domain_config *d_config,
               uint64_t rdm_start, uint64_t rdm_size, int rdm_policy)
{
     d_config->rdms = libxl__realloc(NOGC, d_config->rdms,
                     (d_config->num_rdms+1) * sizeof(libxl_device_rdm));

     d_config->rdms[d_config->num_rdms].start = rdm_start;
     d_config->rdms[d_config->num_rdms].size = rdm_size;
     d_config->rdms[d_config->num_rdms].policy = rdm_policy;
     d_config->num_rdms++;
}

Does this work for you? If I'm still wrong, please correct this function 
directly to cost you less.

Thanks
Tiejun