On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 09:38:39AM +0800, Eli Qiao wrote:
On Thursday, 6 April 2017 at 8:46 PM, Martin Kletzander wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 08:20:56PM +0800, Eli Qiao wrote:
> > This patch is based on Martin's cache branch.
> >
> > This patch amends the cache bank capability as follow:
>
> It helps a lot if you wait for a conclusion on a patch before sending
> another version as soon as you can change one line.
>
Okay, I will keep my patience next time, this time is just because I was working over time
yesterday.
>
> > <cache>
> > <bank id='0' level='3' type='unified'
size='15360' unit='KiB' cpus='0-5'>
> > <control min='768' unit='KiB' type='unified'
nallocations='4'/>
> > </bank>
> > <bank id='1' level='3' type='unified'
size='15360' unit='KiB' cpus='6-11'>
> > <control min='768' unit='KiB' type='unified'
nallocations='4'/>
> > </bank>
> > </cache>
> >
>
>
> I know Dan proposed "nallocations", but it sounds like one word. I
> would rather use "allocations" or "max_allocs" or something
> understandable. The reason for it? We have no documentation for our
> capabilities XML. And nobody is trying to create one as far as I know.
> So at least the naming should be more intuitive.
>
yep, I will wait for the final decision.
>
> > Along with vircaps2xmltest case updated.
>
>
> I'm sensing you haven't ran the tests. Am I right?
>
Why ?
taget@s2600wt:~/libvirt$ ./tests/vircaps2xmltest
TEST: vircaps2xmltest
.... 4 OK
All tests, not just one ;) That's why they're there =)
(hint: virschematest)