10:54 a.m.
There's no sense in advertising cpuselection capability when host CPU
is not properly detected and advertised in host capabilities.
---
src/qemu/qemu_conf.c | 3 ++-
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/qemu/qemu_conf.c b/src/qemu/qemu_conf.c
index 3fb0074..ff5bd43 100644
--- a/src/qemu/qemu_conf.c
+++ b/src/qemu/qemu_conf.c
@@ -892,7 +892,8 @@ qemudCapsInitGuest(virCapsPtr caps,
guest->arch.defaultInfo.emulator_mtime = binary_mtime;
- if (qemudProbeCPUModels(binary, info->arch, &ncpus, NULL) == 0
+ if (caps->host.cpu
+ && qemudProbeCPUModels(binary, info->arch, &ncpus, NULL) == 0
&& ncpus > 0
&& !virCapabilitiesAddGuestFeature(guest, "cpuselection", 1,
0))
goto error;
--
1.7.0.4
3:37 a.m.
On Tue, Apr 06, 2010 at 05:54:58PM +0200, Jiri Denemark wrote:
There's no sense in advertising cpuselection capability when host
CPU
is not properly detected and advertised in host capabilities.
---
src/qemu/qemu_conf.c | 3 ++-
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/qemu/qemu_conf.c b/src/qemu/qemu_conf.c
index 3fb0074..ff5bd43 100644
--- a/src/qemu/qemu_conf.c
+++ b/src/qemu/qemu_conf.c
@@ -892,7 +892,8 @@ qemudCapsInitGuest(virCapsPtr caps,
guest->arch.defaultInfo.emulator_mtime = binary_mtime;
- if (qemudProbeCPUModels(binary, info->arch, &ncpus, NULL) == 0
+ if (caps->host.cpu
+ && qemudProbeCPUModels(binary, info->arch, &ncpus, NULL) == 0
&& ncpus > 0
&& !virCapabilitiesAddGuestFeature(guest, "cpuselection", 1,
0))
goto error;
We usually put && on end of line, and I really prefer fully parenthesized
tests expressions, so I would go for a bit of cleanup too.
ACK
Daniel
--
Daniel Veillard | libxml Gnome XML XSLT toolkit http://xmlsoft.org/
daniel(a)veillard.com | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/
http://veillard.com/ | virtualization library http://libvirt.org/
4:29 a.m.
> guest->arch.defaultInfo.emulator_mtime = binary_mtime;
>
> - if (qemudProbeCPUModels(binary, info->arch, &ncpus, NULL) == 0
> + if (caps->host.cpu
> + && qemudProbeCPUModels(binary, info->arch, &ncpus, NULL) ==
0
> && ncpus > 0
> && !virCapabilitiesAddGuestFeature(guest, "cpuselection",
1, 0))
> goto error;
We usually put && on end of line,
Yeah, usually, although not always :-)
I prefer it this way as you don't have
to look at the end of line to check if that line is part of the condition or
not. But I don't really care too much and I can change it.
and I really prefer fully parenthesized tests expressions
Hmm,
I don't :-) Because you can see the difference if you mistakenly type =
instead of == there (well, not in this exact case, but in general):
if (x = 0) vs. if ((x = 0))
In the first case gcc would warn you but in the second one it wouldn't. So I
prefer extra parentheses to be put only around assignments not tests to reveal
this kind of typos.
Jirka
4:40 a.m.
On Wed, Apr 07, 2010 at 11:29:07AM +0200, Jiri Denemark wrote:
> > guest->arch.defaultInfo.emulator_mtime =
binary_mtime;
> >
> > - if (qemudProbeCPUModels(binary, info->arch, &ncpus, NULL) == 0
> > + if (caps->host.cpu
> > + && qemudProbeCPUModels(binary, info->arch, &ncpus,
NULL) == 0
> > && ncpus > 0
> > && !virCapabilitiesAddGuestFeature(guest,
"cpuselection", 1, 0))
> > goto error;
>
> We usually put && on end of line,
Yeah, usually, although not always :-) I prefer it this way as you don't have
to look at the end of line to check if that line is part of the condition or
not. But I don't really care too much and I can change it.
> and I really prefer fully parenthesized tests expressions
Hmm, I don't :-) Because you can see the difference if you mistakenly type =
instead of == there (well, not in this exact case, but in general):
if (x = 0) vs. if ((x = 0))
In the first case gcc would warn you but in the second one it wouldn't. So I
prefer extra parentheses to be put only around assignments not tests to reveal
this kind of typos.
If you're afraid of == turning into = then do what peopel suggest
which is to swap the arguments (foo() = bar) or (0 = bar) will both
be caught and even more drastically by compilers, but the expression
will be readable/understandable without trying to remember what is the
order of priorities for operators in C !
Daniel
--
Daniel Veillard | libxml Gnome XML XSLT toolkit http://xmlsoft.org/
daniel(a)veillard.com | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/
http://veillard.com/ | virtualization library http://libvirt.org/
2:54 p.m.
> - if (qemudProbeCPUModels(binary, info->arch, &ncpus,
NULL) == 0
> + if (caps->host.cpu
> + && qemudProbeCPUModels(binary, info->arch, &ncpus, NULL) ==
0
> && ncpus > 0
> && !virCapabilitiesAddGuestFeature(guest, "cpuselection",
1, 0))
> goto error;
We usually put && on end of line
OK, I fixed this,
and I really prefer fully parenthesized tests expressions
didn't fix this (also because it's actually pretty rare in libvirt code),
ACK
and pushed.
Jirka
5375
days inactive
5376
days old
4 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
Daniel Veillard -
Jiri Denemark