Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH for 4.6 v3 2/3] xl/libxl: disallow saving a guest with vNUMA configured

[Wei Liu <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 02:59:07PM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-09-11 at 14:43 +0100, Wei Liu wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 02:21:17PM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2015-09-11 at 11:50 +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > > > But "is d->vnuma" corresponds to there being vnuma config for the
> > > > domain. 
> > > 
> > > We discussed this IRL and concluded that we should stop trying to
> > > differentiate "no vnuma configuration" from "has empty vnuma
> > > configuration".
> > > 
> > > So this code should raise this error if xc_domain_getvnuma returns
> > > anything
> > > other than rc == -1 && errno == XEN_EOPNOTSUPP. So the check is
> > > 
> > >     if ( rc != -1 || errno != XEN_EOPNOTSUPP )
> > > 
> > 
> > To be precise, this should be
> > 
> >       if ( rc != -1 || errno == XEN_EOPNOTSUPP )
> > 
> > (your if expression contradicts what you said)
> 
> I don't think it did, but they are inverses of each other, due to the
> "other than" wording in the prose.
>               errno == OPNOTSUPP      errno != OPNOTSUPP
> rc >=0                ???                     Some vnuma config
> rc ==-1               No vnuma config(*)      Some other error
> 
> (*) is the only situation which is allowed, which is what I described in
> the text.
> 
> But the if needs to reject the other 3 cases, so it is in the inverse test.
> rc != -1 covers the top row, and errno != OPNOTSUPP covers the second
> column, if either are true then we do not want to proceed.
> 

Oh, right, I misinterpreted your expression. Sorry for the noise.

Wei.

> Ian.

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