Sigh. Rebase, I've heard of that, maybe I should remember to do it :-( The failures are related to the rebasing, I'm working on that and I'll incorporate your other fixes (with a couple of comments in line). Only open issue is the flag name, I have no problems with _EXPAND_FEATURES, unless there's an objection I'll do that. On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 03:59:38PM -0600, Eric Blake wrote: ...
+++ b/src/cpu/cpu.h @@ -49,7 +49,8 @@ typedef int const union cpuData *data, const char **models, unsigned int nmodels, - const char *preferred); + const char *preferred, + unsigned int flags);
typedef int (*cpuArchEncode) (const virCPUDefPtr cpu, @@ -76,7 +77,8 @@ typedef virCPUDefPtr (*cpuArchBaseline) (virCPUDefPtr *cpus, unsigned int ncpus, const char **models, - unsigned int nmodels); + unsigned int nmodels, + unsigned int /* flags */);
No need to comment out the parameter name (multiple instances */.
This was to avoid compile failures with unused parameters but this becomes moot when I put in the code to explicitly check that flag. ...
@@ -1383,6 +1416,9 @@ x86Decode(virCPUDefPtr cpu, goto out; }
+ if (flags & VIR_CONNECT_BASELINE_CPU_EXPAND_FEATURE) + if (x86AddFeatures(cpuModel, map) < 0) + goto out;
You could write this with fewer nested if:
if ((flags & VIR_CONNECT_BASELINE_CPU_EXPAND_FEATURE) && x86AddFeatures(cpuModel, map) < 0) goto out;
I actually prefer the nested ifs over the logical expression (to me that's more obvious) but I don't mind changing if that's your preferred coding style. ...
@@ -6049,7 +6057,8 @@ cmdCPUBaseline(vshControl *ctl, const vshCmd *cmd) list[i] = vshStrdup(ctl, (const char *)xmlBufferContent(xml_buf)); }
- result = virConnectBaselineCPU(ctl->conn, list, count, 0); + result = virConnectBaselineCPU(ctl->conn, list, count, flags); +vshPrint(ctl, "result - %p\n", result);
Leftover debugging?
Yep, shoot me, I should know better. Sorry about that. -- Don Dugger "Censeo Toto nos in Kansa esse decisse." - D. Gale n0ano@n0ano.com Ph: 303/443-3786