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: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 08:33:42 +0800
Message-ID: <55AEE4E6.5030508@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>
	<55AE6871.6070903@intel.com>
	<21934.27603.498330.185762@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: <21934.27603.498330.185762@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 23:57, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Chen, Tiejun writes ("Re: [v10][PATCH 11/16] tools/libxl: detect and avoid conflicts with RDM"):
>> 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.
>
> You are talking about <55AE2BB1.9030604@intel.com> I guess.  I replied
> to that with several comments about your prose and about the
> computation of the new set of rdms.
>
> It's true that I didn't comment on the frat that you had half-done one
> of the things I had requested.  It is of course a waste of my time to
> be constantly re-reviewing half-done changes.

Next time I should see each line of all comments carefully. Maybe its 
good way to use IRC to take your quick advice in advance, and I hope 
this make you feel better. Anyway, sorry to bring this kind of 
inconvenience.

>
>> 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.
>
> Yes, that is what I meant.
>

Good to know.

Thanks
Tiejun