 Home |
Products |
Support |
Community |
News |
xen-devel
Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 3/6] eliminate cpu_set()
| To: | Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 3/6] eliminate cpu_set() |
| From: | Keir Fraser <keir@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Mon, 07 Nov 2011 14:48:15 +0000 |
| Cc: | "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Delivery-date: | Mon, 07 Nov 2011 06:49:10 -0800 |
| Dkim-signature: | v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:user-agent:date:subject:from:to:cc:message-id:thread-topic :thread-index:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=VqS91bY2ChKd2xsFt+aUJzbcOX67AgHSwc0nvZW+2J8=; b=f7vV3ScVTcFUtftKhhMVLfeuR1xGABhr4wcELwG3XpNTaGOsjXK78sae+LOyZtDLqn 5A1KJ5xLseYyEFpzWhXXwwSB/015pOJ4cMQ7QBbvIb3MMLgOk2LouqyGZ4AQN1ZVlzPz 0gBFsr5G0gllfW4zmNOqyVr+uIWuZ7IaP8klM= |
| Envelope-to: | www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <4EB7FBB7020000780005F5E9@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| List-help: | <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help> |
| List-id: | Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com> |
| List-post: | <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com> |
| List-subscribe: | <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe> |
| List-unsubscribe: | <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe> |
| Sender: | xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| Thread-index: | AcydXEeOwIYL+qRjyUm0FtGj++bABg== |
| Thread-topic: | [Xen-devel] [PATCH 3/6] eliminate cpu_set() |
| User-agent: | Microsoft-Entourage/12.30.0.110427 |
On 07/11/2011 14:39, "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> I don't like set_cpu_{present,online} taking a boolean clear/set flag. There
>> is no caller that can both set and clear a flag, so it is always hardcoded
>> as 0 or 1. And then the reader has to make a (probably not hard) guess what
>> that means.
>>
>> If you must add an abstraction interface here, better to define four of
>> them: {set,clear}_cpu_{present,online}.
>
> Hmm, I don't like this interface design too much either, but again wanted
> to follow Linux rather than cooking our own. Do you really want us to
> diverge in this respect?
Yes. Apart from maybe the code that tickles the remote APIC, our smpboot
code is already well diverged from Linux.
-- Keir
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 3/6] eliminate cpu_set(), Jan Beulich |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [Xen-devel] Question about HVM network, Ian Campbell |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 3/6] eliminate cpu_set(), Jan Beulich |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 3/6] eliminate cpu_set(), Jan Beulich |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |
