From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: George Dunlap <george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08 of 10 v3] libxl: enable automatic
 placement of guests on NUMA nodes
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2012 14:05:34 +0100
Message-ID: <4FF6E29E.3010006@eu.citrix.com>
References: <patchbomb.1341418679@Solace>
	<7087d3622ee2051654c9.1341418687@Solace>
	<4FF6CC5C.1060905@eu.citrix.com> <1341579635.15708.17.camel@Abyss>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
In-Reply-To: <1341579635.15708.17.camel@Abyss>
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: Dario Faggioli <raistlin@linux.it>
Cc: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@amd.com>, Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com>, Stefano Stabellini <Stefano.Stabellini@eu.citrix.com>, Juergen Gross <juergen.gross@ts.fujitsu.com>, Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com>, "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" <xen-devel@lists.xen.org>, Roger Pau Monne <roger.pau@citrix.com>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On 06/07/12 14:00, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-07-06 at 12:30 +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
>> One question I have:  Is there any particular reason to sort the whole
>> list, rather than just finding the maximum based on the comparison function?
>>
> That is basically a leftover from my previous "let's make things a bit
> more general" approach. Don't get me wrong, I still think that and like
> sorting more than anything else for the interface (although it's an
> "internal interface") but yes, right now looking for the max won't be
> anything different from sorting descending and taking the #0 element.
>
>> But I think it's been a long time and it looks good enough to me:
>>
>> Acked-by: George Dunlap<george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com>
>>
> Ok, I get this like I can leave it as it is... Or you want me to kill
> the sorting?
I can't really foresee a time when anyone would want to use anything 
other than the best option.  Just choosing the best makes a slightly 
simpler interface, and simplified the code somewhat.  At the moment, 
sorting shouldn't take too long, but suppose we get systems with 128 
nodes at some point in the future -- then the number of possible 
combinations might be pretty large, and sorting that even at n log n 
might take a noticeable amount of time.

So I think it's up to you: If you thinking sorting will be useful in the 
future, then I think keep it.  But if you also think it's not going to 
be very useful, I think it would make more sense to take it out.

  -George