Re: [libvirt] [PATCH v5 06/13] conf: Introduce address caching for PCI extensions

On Wed, 2018-09-12 at 16:34 +0800, Yi Min Zhao wrote: > 在 2018/9/12 下午3:35, Yi Min Zhao 写道: >>> This makes sense and seems to work just fine; however, you are >>> allocating and releasing a bunch of small integers, which seems >>> a bit wasteful. >>> >>> vircgroup is AFAICT avoiding all that extra memory management by >>> stuffing the values straight into the pointers themselves, which >>> you should also be able to do since the biggest legal ID is a >>> 32-bit integer. >>> >>> That said, I haven't been able to get that to actually work, at >>> least with a quick attempt :( Would you mind exploring that route >>> and figuring out whether it's feasible at all? >> I'm testing this. Actually I wanted to do so like vircgroup. I >> remembered there's >> error due to the previous code logic. I will reply to you later. > I remebered the reason and test again. FID might be 0. It is treated as > an error > if we save 0 in void* pointer. Right. Too bad fid can go all the way to UINT32_MAX, otherwise we could have just stored them in the pointer after offsetting them by one and thus worked around the issue... I guess forbidding users from using UINT32_MAX as a fid is not an option, right?