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@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 ;)