Re: [PATCH v4 3/4] tools: add tools support for Intel CDP

[Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>]

On Thu, 2015-09-17 at 17:35 +0800, He Chen wrote:
> @@ -8410,20 +8415,29 @@ static void psr_cat_print_one_domain_cbm(uint32_t
> domid, uint32_t socketid)
>      printf("%5d%25s", domid, domain_name);
>      free(domain_name);
>  
> -    if (!libxl_psr_cat_get_cbm(ctx, domid, LIBXL_PSR_CBM_TYPE_L3_CBM,
> -                               socketid, &cbm))
> -         printf("%#16"PRIx64, cbm);
> -
> +    if (!cdp_enabled) {
> +        if (!libxl_psr_cat_get_cbm(ctx, domid, LIBXL_PSR_CBM_TYPE_L3_CBM,
> +                                   socketid, &cbm))
> +            printf("%#16"PRIx64, cbm);
> +    } else {
> +        if (!libxl_psr_cat_get_cbm(ctx, domid, LIBXL_PSR_CBM_TYPE_L3_CODE,
> +                                   socketid, &cbm))
> +            printf("%10s%#8"PRIx64, "code:", cbm);
> +        if (!libxl_psr_cat_get_cbm(ctx, domid, LIBXL_PSR_CBM_TYPE_L3_DATA,
> +                                   socketid, &cbm))
> +            printf("%10s%#8"PRIx64, "data:", cbm);
> +    }

Does cdp being enabled mean that the original L3_CBM functionality is no
longer available then?

Please could you give an example of the new output format for this command
in the commit message.

>  static int psr_cat_show(uint32_t domid)
> @@ -8489,6 +8503,8 @@ int main_psr_cat_cbm_set(int argc, char **argv)
>      libxl_psr_cbm_type type = LIBXL_PSR_CBM_TYPE_L3_CBM;
>      uint64_t cbm;
>      int ret, opt = 0;
> +    int opt_data = 0;
> +    int opt_code = 0;
>      libxl_bitmap target_map;
>      char *value;
>      libxl_string_list socket_list;
> 
> [...]

> @@ -8517,8 +8535,19 @@ int main_psr_cat_cbm_set(int argc, char **argv)
>          libxl_string_list_dispose(&socket_list);
>          free(value);
>          break;
> +    case 'd':
> +        type = LIBXL_PSR_CBM_TYPE_L3_DATA;
> +        opt_data = 1;
> +        break;
> +    case 'c':
> +        type = LIBXL_PSR_CBM_TYPE_L3_CODE;
> +        opt_code = 1;
> +        break;
>      }
>  
> +    if (opt_data && opt_code)

Do you not mean !opt_data && !opt_code?

But also, isn't this assignment unnecessary since type is initialised to
the same value when it is declared?

In fact, because of that initialisation, aren't opt_data and opt_code
unnecessary, since you set type appropriately elsewhere.

Are -d and -c mutually exclusive, or is it expected that both can be given?