On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 08:59:50AM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
Mark Johnson wrote:
1673a1675,1677
if (virDomainGetInfo(dom, &info) != 0) { info.maxMem = 0; } 1675c1679 < if (kilobytes <= 0) {
if ((kilobytes <= 0) || (kilobytes > info.maxMem)) {
I don't understand this bit. If virDomainGetInfo fails then it'll always give an error because kilobytes > info.maxMem (== 0) ?
Agreed, we probably need to better handle the case where virDomainGetInfo fails, there was an actual scenario where we still wanted to try to set the memory anyway, but I can't remember. But the idea of the patch is fine... I'm not too fond of info.memory = 0x7fffffff; can we express that value like (((unsigned int) 1 << 31) -1 ) or a standard macro value for MAX_INT ? but that's cosmetic. Daniel -- Red Hat Virtualization group http://redhat.com/virtualization/ Daniel Veillard | virtualization library http://libvirt.org/ veillard@redhat.com | libxml GNOME XML XSLT toolkit http://xmlsoft.org/ http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/