On Fri, Jun 23, 2006 at 05:48:40PM +0200, michel.ponceau(a)bull.net wrote: Hum, let's see. We expose the number of virtual CPUs in the info structure so yes that's something which is part of what we expose. So that would be /** * virDomainSetVcpus: * @domain: a domain object or NULL * @nvcpus: the new number of virtual CPUs for this domain * * Dynamically change the number of virtual CPUs used by the domain. * Note that this call may fail if the underlying virtualization hypervisor * does not support it or if growing the number is arbitrary limited. * This function requires priviledged access to the hypervisor. * * Returns 0 in case of success and -1 in case of failure. */ int virDomainSetVcpus(virDomainPtr domain, unsigned int nvcpus) { } It would be preferable to go though Xend first at least. I don't think xenstore is a good idea at this point. Now for the direct hypervisor, I'm uncertain, it could be a good idea to provide redundancy over xend, I assume it should not be hard to do that at the hypervisor level, the risk is introducing incoherence between what xend thinks and what the hypervisor atually implement :-) vcpu-list might be a bit subtle as an API design level. Better not allocate the array in libvirt, but have the user pass an array. Also how much information would you extract per CPU, just on/off ? Daniel -- Daniel Veillard | Red Hat http://redhat.com/ veillard(a)redhat.com | libxml GNOME XML XSLT toolkit http://xmlsoft.org/ http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/