On 07/14/2015 10:37 AM, Michal Privoznik wrote:
> There's this condition:
>
> flags & VIR_DOMAIN_AFFECT_CURRENT && virDomainIsActive(dom)
>
> which can never be true since VIR_DOMAIN_AFFECT_CURRENT has hardcoded
> value of zero. Therefore virDomainIsActive() is a dead code. However,
> the condition could make sense if it is rewritten as the following:
>
> !(flags & VIR_DOMAIN_AFFECT_CONFIG) && virDomainIsActive(dom)
>
> Signed-off-by: Michal Privoznik <mprivozn@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> tools/virsh-domain.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
I had seen and filtered locally but didn't send since I was working
through perhaps removing some sa_assert()'s
> diff --git a/tools/virsh-domain.c b/tools/virsh-domain.c
> index ac04ded..f7edeeb 100644
> --- a/tools/virsh-domain.c
> +++ b/tools/virsh-domain.c
> @@ -6499,7 +6499,7 @@ cmdVcpuPin(vshControl *ctl, const vshCmd *cmd)
>
> if (got_vcpu && vcpu >= ncpus) {
> if (flags & VIR_DOMAIN_AFFECT_LIVE ||
> - (flags & VIR_DOMAIN_AFFECT_CURRENT &&
> + (!(flags & VIR_DOMAIN_AFFECT_CONFIG) &&
> virDomainIsActive(dom) == 1))
Wouldn't another option be:
(current && virDomainIsActive(dom) == 1)
Which is what I think was trying to be tested anyway
ACK to both patches in any case,
John
> vshError(ctl,
> _("vcpu %d is out of range of live cpu count %d"),
>
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list