On Mon, Dec 02, 2013 at 02:38:09PM -0700, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 12/01/2013 11:11 PM, Hu Tao wrote:
> > This patch will add -device pvpanic to qemu command line if user enables
> > pvpanic in domain xml and the qemu version supports pvpanic.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Hu Tao <hutao@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > src/qemu/qemu_capabilities.c | 3 +++
> > src/qemu/qemu_capabilities.h | 2 ++
> > src/qemu/qemu_command.c | 10 ++++++++++
> > 3 files changed, 15 insertions(+)
> >
>
> In addition to Peter's comments,
>
> > +++ b/src/qemu/qemu_capabilities.h
> > @@ -199,6 +199,8 @@ enum virQEMUCapsFlags {
> > QEMU_CAPS_DEVICE_ICH9_INTEL_HDA = 158, /* -device ich9-intel-hda */
> > QEMU_CAPS_KVM_PIT_TICK_POLICY = 159, /* kvm-pit.lost_tick_policy */
> >
> > + QEMU_CAPS_DEVICE_PVPANIC = 160, /* -device pvpanic */
>
> Alignment looks odd here.
It aligns as most of the enums do. It doesn't look alike the above two
because their names are too long.
>
> > + if (def->pvpanic &&
> > + virQEMUCapsGet(qemuCaps, QEMU_CAPS_DEVICE_PVPANIC)) {
> > + if (def->pvpanic->ioport > 0) {
>
> Again, is port 0 a valid port (given that you initialized it to -1)?
>
> I know we haven't been doing a good job of domxml-from-native, but in
> this particular case, can we also fix the command line parser to turn
> '-device pvpanic' into the appropriate pvpanic device allocation?
In the case of native->xml, I think we'd better to keep port 0 in xml.
I'll fix it.
>
> > + } else
>
> Style. If you used {} for 'if', you must also use it for 'else' (I'm
> still not sure how to enforce it by syntax-check, but it's on my list of
> things that would be nice to have).
Thanks.
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list