From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/5] libxc/trace: Add xc_tbuf_set_cpu_mask_array a variant of xc_tbuf_set_cpu_mask (v3) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2014 13:52:09 -0400 Message-ID: <20140613175209.GC29076@laptop.dumpdata.com> References: <1401889471-1174-1-git-send-email-konrad.wilk@oracle.com> <1401889471-1174-3-git-send-email-konrad.wilk@oracle.com> <538F4D41.8070806@eu.citrix.com> <538F4ECB.90804@eu.citrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail6.bemta14.messagelabs.com ([193.109.254.103]) by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1WvVeH-0004nR-Up for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Fri, 13 Jun 2014 17:52:22 +0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <538F4ECB.90804@eu.citrix.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: George Dunlap Cc: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com, ian.campbell@citrix.com, stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Wed, Jun 04, 2014 at 05:52:27PM +0100, George Dunlap wrote: > On 06/04/2014 05:45 PM, George Dunlap wrote: > >On 06/04/2014 02:44 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > >>which uses an xc_cpumap_t instead of a uint32_t. This means > >>we can use an arbitrary bitmap without being limited to the > >>32-bits the xc_tbuf_set_cpu_mask_array can only do. > >> > >>We also add an macro which can be used by both libxc and > >>xentrace. > >> > >>Signed-off-by: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk > >>[v2: Use DIV_ROUND_UP macro as suggested by Daniel] > >>[v3: Use 'int' for bits instead of 'unsigned int' as spotted by Boris] > > > > > >Acked-by: George Dunlap > > Oh, sorry -- I meant to say: from what I can tell, at the moment xentrace is > the only user of xc_tbuf_set_cpu_mask(). The libxc interface isn't stable: > why not just leave the name xc_tbuf_set_cpu_mask() and just change the > arguments? (This would obviously involve merging patch 4 into this one as > well.) Done. > > -George >