* Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx> [2005-10-10 11:34]:
>
> On 10 Oct 2005, at 17:23, Ryan Harper wrote:
>
> >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).
>
> I'm not fussed. I guess I have a slight preference for the latter
> (createvcpus).
The first patch creates a new dom0_op, DOM0_VCPUSINCREASE, which will
create VCPU 1 to (limit-1) in the target domain. The max_vcpus value is
gone as is the VCPUOP_create.
The second patch is the same as before.
--
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