On 05/28/2013 03:59 AM, Guannan Ren wrote:
> For qemu, if the -smp N or the value of maxcpus is given, it define
> the number of vcpu of guest whenever the vcpu topology is defined or
> not. But if the -smp N and maxcpus are missing, the topology can
> compute and define vcpus for guest automatically by math:
>
> vcpu number = sockets*cores*threads
>
> For libvirt, as <vcpu> is always mandatory, so we can ask topology
> to match maximum vcpu numbers.
> ---
> src/conf/domain_conf.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/src/conf/domain_conf.c b/src/conf/domain_conf.c
> index a9656af..ffdc6da 100644
> --- a/src/conf/domain_conf.c
> +++ b/src/conf/domain_conf.c
> @@ -11815,10 +11815,10 @@ virDomainDefParseXML(xmlDocPtr xml,
> goto error;
>
> if (def->cpu->sockets &&
> - def->maxvcpus >
> + def->maxvcpus !=
> def->cpu->sockets * def->cpu->cores * def->cpu->threads) {
> virReportError(VIR_ERR_XML_DETAIL, "%s",
> - _("Maximum CPUs greater than topology limit"));
> + _("Topology limit does not match maximum CPUs"));
Is this going to reject XML that was previously accepted? Is there a
bugzilla showing what happens if this patch is not incorporated? I'm
worried about introducing an unintentional regression if we include this
in 1.0.6 without more justification.
--
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