On 02/24/2016 09:22 AM, Peter Krempa wrote:
> Introduce VIR_DOMAIN_DEF_FEATURE_OFFLINE_CPUPIN domain feature flag
Should it be VCPUPIN ?
> whcih will allow to skip ignoring of the pinning information for
> hypervisor drivers which will want to implement forward-pinning of
> vcpus.
> ---
> src/conf/domain_conf.c | 28 +++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> src/conf/domain_conf.h | 1 +
> 2 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/src/conf/domain_conf.c b/src/conf/domain_conf.c
> index 101fae2..4220448 100644
> --- a/src/conf/domain_conf.c
> +++ b/src/conf/domain_conf.c
> @@ -4215,6 +4215,25 @@ virDomainDeviceDefPostParseInternal(virDomainDeviceDefPtr dev,
> }
>
>
A little intro would be nice...
> +static void
> +virDomainDefRemoveOfflineVcpuPin(virDomainDefPtr def)
> +{
> + size_t i;
> + virDomainVcpuInfoPtr vcpu;
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < virDomainDefGetVcpusMax(def); i++) {
> + vcpu = virDomainDefGetVcpu(def, i);
> +
> + if (!vcpu->online && vcpu->cpumask) {
> + virBitmapFree(vcpu->cpumask);
> + vcpu->cpumask = NULL;
> +
> + VIR_WARN("Ignoring unsupported vcpupin for offline vcpu '%zu'", i);
Is/was this for debugging? Do we really want to WARN or just go with INFO?
> + }
> + }
> +}
> +
> +
[...]
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list