On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 09:51:02AM +0800, Eli Qiao wrote:
On Thursday, 6 April 2017 at 9:04 PM, Martin Kletzander wrote: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 ? >There’s a discussion from https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2017-March/msg01689.html I think I made a mistake here, it should be ’scope’ instead of ’type’ here.
The name doesn't really matter that much, 'scope' makes a bit more sense, 'type' is consistent with the cache bank specification, I'm fine with any. The big question here was if it is possible to have: <bank type='unified'> <control scope='code'/> <control scope='data'/> </bank> And from what you say, the simple answer is "yes". So we need to have the attribute there in the control element as well. P.S.: It would be clearly visible if you added the test case ;)
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
