From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1MJ8D1-0000yj-S7
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 23 Jun 2009 11:46:55 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1MJ8Cw-0000wy-TD
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 23 Jun 2009 11:46:55 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=36667 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MJ8Cw-0000wl-A7
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 23 Jun 2009 11:46:50 -0400
Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:38951)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <avi@redhat.com>) id 1MJ8Cv-0007sh-P5
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 23 Jun 2009 11:46:50 -0400
Message-ID: <4A40F91D.5060102@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 18:47:41 +0300
From: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20090623100009.827553739@sgi.com> <4A40BE90.4040709@redhat.com>
	<4A40D965.7010508@sgi.com> <4A40DA69.7010300@redhat.com>
	<4A40EF9D.90303@sgi.com>
In-Reply-To: <4A40EF9D.90303@sgi.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: [patch 0/2] QEMU maxcpus support
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Jes Sorensen <jes@sgi.com>
Cc: Anthony Liguori <aliguori@us.ibm.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On 06/23/2009 06:07 PM, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> On 06/23/2009 03:36 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
>> On 06/23/2009 04:32 PM, Jes Sorensen wrote:
>>>> I should have said this at your previous post, but it only occurred to
>>>> me now: we could have -smp 4,maxcpus=65536 instead of a new parameter.
>>>
>>> We could do that too, but is it really worth it? It seems to me 
>>> -maxcpus
>>> is fine?
>>
>> The trend is to consolidate related options into a single option, -to
>> -avoid -command -lines -with -too -many -dashes.
>
> Ok, so how about this then?
>
>
>   DEF("smp", HAS_ARG, QEMU_OPTION_smp,
> -    "-smp n          set the number of CPUs to 'n' [default=1]\n")
> +    "-smp n,[maxcpus=cpus]\n"
>    

-smp n[,maxcpus=cpus]

> @@ -5550,12 +5551,29 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv, char **e
>                   usb_devices_index++;
>                   break;
>               case QEMU_OPTION_smp:
> -                smp_cpus = atoi(optarg);
> +            {
> +                char *p;
> +                char option[128];
> +                smp_cpus = strtol(optarg,&p, 10);
>                   if (smp_cpus<  1) {
>                       fprintf(stderr, "Invalid number of CPUs\n");
>                       exit(1);
>                   }
> +                if (*p++ != ',')
> +                    break;
>    

Won't this misparse "-smp 17z"?

> +                if (get_param_value(option, 128, "maxcpus", p))
> +                    max_cpus = strtol(option, NULL, 0);
> +                if (max_cpus<  smp_cpus) {
> +                    fprintf(stderr, "maxcpus must be equal to or greater than "
> +                            "smp\n");
> +                    exit(1);
> +                }
> +                if (max_cpus>  255) {
> +                    fprintf(stderr, "Unsupported number of maxcpus\n");
> +                    exit(1);
> +                }
>                   break;
> +            }
>    

We really need a table-driven parser for options.

-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function