From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Dario Faggioli <dario.faggioli@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2 of 3 v2] libxl,
 xl: user can ask for min and max nodes to use during placement
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 17:34:42 +0100
Message-ID: <1352738082.32203.7.camel@Solace>
References: <patchbomb.1350657293@Solace>
	<4e5e196ea494ba7c4aaf.1350657295@Solace>
	<1352737619.27833.297.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============8351398986138395391=="
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
In-Reply-To: <1352737619.27833.297.camel@zakaz.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 Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com>
Cc: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@amd.com>, Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com>, "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" <xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

--===============8351398986138395391==
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-qZuhBs324O6DucYIS65i"

--=-qZuhBs324O6DucYIS65i
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, 2012-11-12 at 16:26 +0000, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-10-19 at 15:34 +0100, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> > @@ -219,6 +219,11 @@ int libxl__domain_build_info_setdefault(
> > =20
> >      libxl_defbool_setdefault(&b_info->numa_placement, true);
> > =20
> > +    if (!b_info->min_nodes)
> > +        b_info->min_nodes =3D 0;
> > +    if (!b_info->max_nodes)
> > +        b_info->max_nodes =3D 0;=20
>=20
> Aren't both of these if statements tautologous?
>=20
Looks like they are. I'll double check this before reposting.

I think what I wanted to do was making sure to zero those new fields, if
not otherwise initialized by someone else... and, of course, I got that
wrong! :-P


Thanks,
Dario

--=20
<<This happens because I choose it to happen!>> (Raistlin Majere)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dario Faggioli, Ph.D, http://retis.sssup.it/people/faggioli
Senior Software Engineer, Citrix Systems R&D Ltd., Cambridge (UK)


--=-qZuhBs324O6DucYIS65i
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEABECAAYFAlChJSIACgkQk4XaBE3IOsR7LwCeIdLCWcOJtBiiMcMBnHxnjlQO
FasAnRLhIGzhJaVtGXDrD+AUikdyRxaU
=jyVz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=-qZuhBs324O6DucYIS65i--


--===============8351398986138395391==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

--===============8351398986138395391==--