On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 17:24:56 +0200, Michal Privoznik wrote:
After previous patches we have two structures: virCapsHostNUMACellDistance and virNumaDistance which express the same thing. And have the exact same members (modulo their names). Drop the former in favor of the latter.
Signed-off-by: Michal Privoznik <mprivozn@redhat.com> --- src/conf/capabilities.c | 26 ++++++++------------------ src/conf/capabilities.h | 11 +++-------- src/conf/virconftypes.h | 2 -- src/libxl/libxl_capabilities.c | 8 ++++---- 4 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/conf/capabilities.c b/src/conf/capabilities.c index 926ecb5a24..1290c9c15d 100644 --- a/src/conf/capabilities.c +++ b/src/conf/capabilities.c
[...]
@@ -833,17 +833,7 @@ virCapabilitiesHostNUMAFormat(virBuffer *buf, cell->pageinfo[j].avail); }
- if (cell->ndistances) { - virBufferAddLit(buf, "<distances>\n"); - virBufferAdjustIndent(buf, 2); - for (j = 0; j < cell->ndistances; j++) {
This code didn't skip printing the sibling if 'value' is 0 ...
- virBufferAsprintf(buf, "<sibling id='%d' value='%d'/>\n", - cell->distances[j].node, - cell->distances[j].distance); - } - virBufferAdjustIndent(buf, -2); - virBufferAddLit(buf, "</distances>\n"); - } + virNumaDistanceFormat(buf, cell->distances, cell->ndistances);
... but this new implementation does that. I didn't check whether that's justified or not, but the commit message doesn't try to justify it either. Was that an expected change?
virBufferAsprintf(buf, "<cpus num='%d'>\n", cell->ncpus); virBufferAdjustIndent(buf, 2);