Re: [PATCH] conf: use proper maximum for parsing memory values

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 10/30/2014 10:51 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 10/30/2014 10:23 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
>>
>> Or maybe the problem is that at some point we used unsigned long, and
>> later moved to unsigned long long, but never updated the comment?  I'm
>> trying to investigate the history of this code...
> 

> 
> Or maybe the solution is to make virDomainParseMemory add a bool
> parameter that says whether the caller is old-style (32-bit cap) or
> new-style (full 64-bit width), and set the maximum according to that
> information.  That's probably the easiest for doing right now.  I can
> take a stab at it, since it was my commit in 2012 that originally
> introduced the weird 32-bit cap even when parsing a 64-bit field.

I went with this idea:

https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2014-October/msg01084.html

-- 
Eric Blake   eblake redhat com    +1-919-301-3266
Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list

[Index of Archives]     [Virt Tools]     [Libvirt Users]     [Lib OS Info]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Big List of Linux Books]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]