Re: [Libvirt-cim] [PATCH 0 of 2] [RFC] First steps in new processor RASD behavior
Jay Gagnon wrote:
Just want to get this out before I start in on the resource
add/mod/del stuff, to see if I'm on the right track. The idea here is that we are not
supporting processor pinning, will support scheduling (weight/limit attributes), and are
making Processor RASDs one-per-domain. Does this look sane?
This looks good to me. +1
Some of the Processor and EAFP tests fail due to these changes, but this
is because the tests are expecting the InstanceID for the device to be
<guest name>/<processor id> instead of <guest name>/proc.
The commit log for the second patch is a bit misleading, since you're
changing device_parsing.c which also impacts Virt_Device. But
otherwise, this tests fine for me.
--
Kaitlin Rupert
IBM Linux Technology Center
kaitlin(a)linux.vnet.ibm.com