From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
To: "wangyanan (Y)" <wangyanan55@huawei.com>,
Andrew Jones <drjones@redhat.com>,
Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>
Cc: "Peter Maydell" <peter.maydell@linaro.org>,
"Daniel P. Berrangé" <berrange@redhat.com>,
"Eduardo Habkost" <ehabkost@redhat.com>,
"Pierre Morel" <pmorel@linux.ibm.com>,
"Pankaj Gupta" <pankaj.gupta.linux@gmail.com>,
qemu-devel@nongnu.org, "Markus Armbruster" <armbru@redhat.com>,
yuzenghui@huawei.com, wanghaibin.wang@huawei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH for-6.1 0/1] machine: Disallow specifying topology parameters as zero
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2021 16:38:45 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <333c63ff-4ccd-9346-1d02-e1316ec365b0@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <93fb73cb-86e7-dc22-cd37-2d61718927e0@huawei.com>
On 22/07/21 16:12, wangyanan (Y) wrote:
> The smp_parse and pc_smp_parse are going to be converted into a
> generic parser, and the added sanity-check in this patch will also be
> tested in an unit test. So is it probably better to keep the check in the
> parser instead of the caller? The duplication will be eliminated anyway
> when there is one single parser.
>
> But I can also implement the check in machine_set_smp as you mentioned
> if it's more reasonable and preferred. :)
Yes, I would prefer to avoid having duplicate code. There are some
common checks already in machine_set_smp, e.g. comparing ms->smp.cpus
against mc->min_cpus and mc->max_cpus.
Paolo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-07-22 14:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-07-22 2:15 [PATCH for-6.1 0/1] machine: Disallow specifying topology parameters as zero Yanan Wang
2021-07-22 2:15 ` [PATCH for-6.1 1/1] " Yanan Wang
2021-07-22 6:02 ` [PATCH for-6.1 0/1] " Cornelia Huck
2021-07-22 10:59 ` wangyanan (Y)
2021-07-22 13:37 ` Andrew Jones
2021-07-22 13:48 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-07-22 13:55 ` Paolo Bonzini
2021-07-22 14:12 ` wangyanan (Y)
2021-07-22 14:38 ` Paolo Bonzini [this message]
2021-07-22 15:00 ` wangyanan (Y)
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=333c63ff-4ccd-9346-1d02-e1316ec365b0@redhat.com \
--to=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=armbru@redhat.com \
--cc=berrange@redhat.com \
--cc=cohuck@redhat.com \
--cc=drjones@redhat.com \
--cc=ehabkost@redhat.com \
--cc=pankaj.gupta.linux@gmail.com \
--cc=peter.maydell@linaro.org \
--cc=pmorel@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
--cc=wanghaibin.wang@huawei.com \
--cc=wangyanan55@huawei.com \
--cc=yuzenghui@huawei.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).