Re: [Xen-devel] [v10][PATCH 11/16] tools/libxl: detect and avoid conflicts with RDM

["Chen, Tiejun" <tiejun.chen@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 2015/7/21 19:11, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Chen, Tiejun writes ("Re: [v10][PATCH 11/16] tools/libxl: detect and avoid conflicts 
> with RDM"):
> > I would add this check at the beginning of this function:
> >
> > assert(!d_config->num_rdms && !d_config->rdms).
> As Ian Campbell and I have explained, that is not OK.
>
> The caller may choose to pass both some rdms and strategy=host.
>
> The most obvious case is something like the following code
>
>    libxl_domain_config cfg;
>    cfg.stuff = blah;
>    cfg.rdm.strategy = HOST;
>
>    libxl_domain_create_new(&cfg, &domid);
>    libxl_domain_destroy(domid);
I'm not sure about this procedure, so do you mean this doesn't free 
d_config->num_rdms/d_config->rdms?
If not, I should double check this duplication so what about a return in 
the case of duplicating one entry?
static void
add_rdm_entry(libxl__gc *gc, libxl_domain_config *d_config,
              uint64_t rdm_start, uint64_t rdm_size, int rdm_policy)
{
    if (d_config->rdms)
    {
        unsigned int i;

        for (i = 0; i < d_config->num_rdms; i++)
        {
            if (d_config->rdms[i].start == rdm_start)
                return;
        }
    }

    d_config->num_rdms++;
    d_config->rdms = libxl__realloc(NOGC, d_config->rdms,
                            d_config->num_rdms * sizeof(libxl_device_rdm));

    d_config->rdms[d_config->num_rdms - 1].start = rdm_start;
    d_config->rdms[d_config->num_rdms - 1].size = rdm_size;
    d_config->rdms[d_config->num_rdms - 1].policy = rdm_policy;
}

Thanks
Tiejun

>    libxl_domain_create_new(&cfg, &domid);
>
> which must work (and the second domain should have identical
> configuration to the first).
>
> Ian.
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel