* Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx> [2005-10-10 11:13]:
>
> 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?
OK, that makes sense. I'll turn VCPUOP_create into set_max_vcpus(max)
which will create vcpus 1-(max-1). Any preference on the hypercall
name? Does set_max_vcpus() still make sense if it is also creating
vcpus?
How about DOM0_CREATEVCPUS and
do_createvcpus(struct domain* d, unsigned int max_vcpus).
--
Ryan Harper
Software Engineer; Linux Technology Center
IBM Corp., Austin, Tx
(512) 838-9253 T/L: 678-9253
ryanh@xxxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
Home