From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Wei Liu Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 03/18] xl / libxl: push VCPU affinity pinning down to libxl Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 14:46:26 +0100 Message-ID: <20140610134626.GK11959@zion.uk.xensource.com> References: <1402317809-26833-1-git-send-email-wei.liu2@citrix.com> <1402317809-26833-4-git-send-email-wei.liu2@citrix.com> <1402383546.25262.7.camel@Abyss> <20140610080937.GA28084@zion.uk.xensource.com> <1402405301.1250.107.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com> <1402405791.16827.29.camel@Solace> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1402405791.16827.29.camel@Solace> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Dario Faggioli Cc: ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com, Wei Liu , Ian Campbell , xen-devel@lists.xen.org List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 03:09:51PM +0200, Dario Faggioli wrote: > On mar, 2014-06-10 at 14:01 +0100, Ian Campbell wrote: > > On Tue, 2014-06-10 at 09:09 +0100, Wei Liu wrote: > > > On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 08:59:06AM +0200, Dario Faggioli wrote: > > > > On Mon, 2014-06-09 at 13:43 +0100, Wei Liu wrote: > > > > > This patch introduces an array of libxl_bitmap called "vcpu_affinity" in > > > > > libxl IDL to preserve VCPU to PCPU mapping. This is necessary for libxl > > > > > to preserve all information to construct a domain. > > > > > > > > > > Also define LIBXL_HAVE_AFFINITY_LIST in libxl.h to mark the change in > > > > > API. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Wei Liu > > > > > Cc: Dario Faggioli > > > > > > > > > So, as far as this patch is concerned: > > > > > > > > Acked-by: Dario Faggioli > > > > > > > > This clashes (not that badly, but it does) with my soft affinity series, > > > > that I just resent yesterday night. It's not a big deal, we just need > > > > two arrays of libxl_bitmap-s instead of just one: one for hard affinity, > > > > and one for soft affinity. Probably that also means that > > > > b_info->vcpu_affinity should have to be renamed to something like > > > > b_info->vcpu_hard_affinity (or b_info->vcpu_hard_aff, or > > > > b_info->hard_affinity, if we want to try keep it a bit shorter). > > > > > > > > > > I would go for vcpu_hard_affinity. When it comes to interface I prefer > > > it to be as explicit as possible. > > > > Renaming fields in the API is problematic, so we should make this be > > correct when we first check it in, whichever order that is in. > > > Good point. > > Well, I may be wrong, but it looks to me that the more logical order > would be for Wei's series to go in first, and me to rebase mine on top > of that. If we do it the other way around, Wei's would have to call the > field vcpu_hard_affinity, without the distinction between hard and soft > affinity being present and explained anywhere in the tree. > I don't think this is a big problem. I will change the name to vcpu_hard_affinity and note this in commit message. Wei.