On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 01:25:35PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 08:20:56PM +0800, Eli Qiao wrote:This patch is based on Martin's cache branch. This patch amends the cache bank capability as follow: <cache> <bank id='0' level='3' type='unified' size='15360' unit='KiB' cpus='0-5'> <control min='768' unit='KiB' type='unified' nallocations='4'/> </bank>Why do we need to report 'type' on both bank & control elements. Are they really expected to have different values ?
That's one of my questions I had way back in some of the previous discussions. Did not get the answer. I suspect there is a reason to whether CDP is enabled or not and it is not just the type of the cache bank itself. If it is, then CDP makes no sense for us at all, actually for anyone who has access to cache information and that would mean bad design of that thing. And that's not something I would expect from this functionality.
Regards, Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
