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

[Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Chen, Tiejun writes ("Re: [v10][PATCH 11/16] tools/libxl: detect and avoid 
conflicts with RDM"):
> Sorry, I just ignore the line in brackets since I always think this kind 
> of thing is often not a big deal, and next time I should pay more 
> attention to the (). But indeed, before I post this whole patch online I 
> also picked up this chunk of code to ask you to take a look that. This 
> manner means I'm not very sure if I'm addressing this properly. But I 
> didn't get a further response, so I guess that should work for you and 
> then I posted the whole online.

You are talking about <55AE2BB1.9030604@xxxxxxxxx> I guess.  I replied
to that with several comments about your prose and about the
computation of the new set of rdms.

It's true that I didn't comment on the frat that you had half-done one
of the things I had requested.  It is of course a waste of my time to
be constantly re-reviewing half-done changes.

> Now back on our problem,
> 
> static void
> add_rdm_entry(libxl__gc *gc, libxl_domain_config *d_config,
>                uint64_t rdm_start, uint64_t rdm_size, int rdm_policy)
> {
>      d_config->rdms = libxl__realloc(NOGC, d_config->rdms,
>                      (d_config->num_rdms+1) * sizeof(libxl_device_rdm));
> 
>      d_config->rdms[d_config->num_rdms].start = rdm_start;
>      d_config->rdms[d_config->num_rdms].size = rdm_size;
>      d_config->rdms[d_config->num_rdms].policy = rdm_policy;
>      d_config->num_rdms++;
> }
> 
> Does this work for you? If I'm still wrong, please correct this function 
> directly to cost you less.

Yes, that is what I meant.

Ian.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel