On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 08:59:50AM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> Mark Johnson wrote:
> >1673a1675,1677
> >> if (virDomainGetInfo(dom, &info) != 0) {
> >> info.maxMem = 0;
> >> }
> >1675c1679
> >< if (kilobytes <= 0) {
> >---
> >> if ((kilobytes <= 0) || (kilobytes > info.maxMem)) {
>
> I don't understand this bit. If virDomainGetInfo fails then it'll
> always give an error because kilobytes > info.maxMem (== 0) ?
Agreed, we probably need to better handle the case where virDomainGetInfo
fails, there was an actual scenario where we still wanted to try to set the
memory anyway, but I can't remember. But the idea of the patch is fine...
I'm not too fond of
info.memory = 0x7fffffff;
can we express that value like (((unsigned int) 1 << 31) -1 ) or a standard
macro value for MAX_INT ? but that's cosmetic.
Daniel
--
Red Hat Virtualization group http://redhat.com/virtualization/
Daniel Veillard | virtualization library http://libvirt.org/
veillard@xxxxxxxxxx | libxml GNOME XML XSLT toolkit http://xmlsoft.org/
http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/