On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 02:05:16AM +0000, Chen, Fan wrote:
On Mon, 2014-11-03 at 14:18 +0100, Martin Kletzander wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 01:44:19PM +0800, Chen Fan wrote:
> >Signed-off-by: Chen Fan <chen.fan.fnst(a)cn.fujitsu.com>
> >---
> > src/util/virnuma.c | 23 ++++-------------------
> > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
> >
> >diff --git a/src/util/virnuma.c b/src/util/virnuma.c
> >index 4188ef5..613a43c 100644
> >--- a/src/util/virnuma.c
> >+++ b/src/util/virnuma.c
> >@@ -95,31 +95,19 @@ virNumaSetupMemoryPolicy(virDomainNumatunePtr numatune,
> > int ret = -1;
> > int bit = 0;
> > size_t i;
> >- int maxnode = 0;
> > virBitmapPtr tmp_nodemask = NULL;
> >
> >+ if (!virNumaNodesetIsAvailable(numatune))
Here you call virNumaNodesetIsAvailable() with @numatune, but ...
> >+ return -1;
> >+
> > tmp_nodemask = virDomainNumatuneGetNodeset(numatune, nodemask, -1);
... here you can get the automatic one ...
> I think this is safe, "numad" returning nodeset
that's not on the host
> would be weird error and it is easy to find in the logs.
I think virNumaNodesetIsAvailable() has checked the case, but retain it
here is ok.
... and that's what I meant here that it might be missed. I would be
OK with the check removed though, since that should create no new
problems, but since you added it in the next version, I'll keep it
there ;)