On Fri, 2020-12-04 at 17:16 +0100, Jürgen Groß wrote:
> On 04.12.20 17:13, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > What I'd do is:
> >   - add a comment here, explaining quickly exactly this fact, i.e.,
> >     that it's not that we've forgotten to deal with this and it's
> > all
> >     on purpose. Actually, it can be either a comment here or it can
> > be
> >     mentioned in the changelog. I'm fine either way
> >   - if we're concerned about someone doing:
> >       for i=1...N { xl cpupool-create foo bar }
> >     with N ending up being some giant number, e.g., by mistake, I
> > don't
> >     think it's unreasonable to come up with an high enough (but
> >     certainly not in the billions!) MAX_CPUPOOLS, and stop creating
> > new
> >     ones when we reach that level.
> 
> Do you agree that this could be another patch?
> 
Ah, yes, sorry, got carried away and forgot to mention that!

Of course it should be in another patch... But indeed I should have
stated that clearly.

So, trying to do better this time round:
- the comment can/should be added as part of this patch. But I'm
  now much more convinced that a quick mention in the changelog
  (still of this patch) is actually better;
- any "solution" (Jan's or MAX_CPUPOOLS) should go in its own patch.

> I'm not introducing that (theoretical) problem here.
> 
Indeed.

Regards
-- 
Dario Faggioli, Ph.D
http://about.me/dario.faggioli
Virtualization Software Engineer
SUSE Labs, SUSE https://www.suse.com/
-------------------------------------------------------------------
<<This happens because _I_ choose it to happen!>> (Raistlin Majere)