On 05/17/2011 12:56 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
On 05/17/2011 12:12 PM, Matthias Bolte wrote:
The actual semantic for (n)params is not completely defined, is it? This just matches what (most of?) the driver currently do.
Hmm, here we document that nparams can be <= the value returned by virDomainGetSchedulerType; which means it can be 0, which means that params can be NULL. I think we should change this to allow NULL,0 in input as a way of querying the proper nparams size on output.
Why would you add a second way to query nparams?
I guess the alternative is to tighten up the documentation to specifically state that nparams must be the number of parameters (and not a subset) managed by the device for Get; Set can still do subsets though.
I went with the documentation alternative in this patch [1], although I didn't add the explicit NULL checking to the new API functions (neither in Hu's virDomainSetSchedulerParametersFlags pushed today, nor my proposed virDomainGetSchedulerParametersFlags in [1]), so depending on which one gets pushed first, the other patch should probably add some NULL checking. [1] https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2011-May/msg01146.html -- Eric Blake eblake@redhat.com +1-801-349-2682 Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org