Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] 0/2 VCPU creation and allocation

[Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 10 Oct 2005, at 17:05, Ryan Harper wrote:

> > Do you even need a max_vcpus variable? Surely the appropriate check is
> > implicit in VCPUOP_initialise detecting whether or not the relevant
> > VCPU has been created?
> I was going to ensure ordered VCPU creation.  Without something like
> vcpuid < max_vcpus+1, and increment on successful creation, one can
> create vcpus in any order, 1,5,7, 10.  I don't think it *should* matter
> but I've not looked elsewhere through the code to see if there are any
> other areas assuming all struct vcpu* being valid between 0 and n in
> the d->vcpus[] array.
Then the vcpu parameter to VCPUOP_create is redundant -- there's only 
one value you will be prepared to accept! If we don't want the 
flexibility of a sparse vcpu map (and I think we don't) then perhaps we 
are better off without VCPUOP_create (which is maybe even a bit neater, 
leaving vcpu_op as a completely unpriv local hypercall) and stick with 
the set_max_vcpus dom0_op? And have that implicitly create the vcpu 
struct for vcpus 0...n-1?
 -- Keir


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel