On 11/01/2012 04:00 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
On 10/31/2012 11:20 AM, Viktor Mihajlovski wrote:
> /* setaffinity fails if you set bits for CPUs which
> * aren't present, so we have to limit ourselves */
Question - does setaffinity fail if you request setting a CPU that is
present but offline? In that case, we would need the CPU map instead of
just the count of max cpus. But in the meantime, I'm okay with your patch.
It will fail in the case you describe. Of course, with the new API it is
possible for a client to determine the host CPU map beforehand allowing
to specify a valid affinity mask. The other question is whether an
incorrect mask should be corrected silently by libvirt or whether a
reported error would be more appropriate.
All in all this needs more thought and discussion, IMO independent of
this patch series.
--
Mit freundlichen Grüßen/Kind Regards
Viktor Mihajlovski
IBM Deutschland Research & Development GmbH
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Martin Jetter
Geschäftsführung: Dirk Wittkopp
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Böblingen
Registergericht: Amtsgericht Stuttgart, HRB 243294