Thx Ben for the review,
I think that this should be dummied not just on Windows but on any > non-Linux kernel, because I doubt that *BSD has the same NUMA interface > as Linux. > > Yeah, I'll do that. > Usually, I prefer to write assertions based on predicate functions, > rather than write specialized assertions for predicates. So my natural > inclination would be something like: > ovs_assert(cpu_socket_id_is_valid(sid)); > instead of > CPU_SOCKET_ID_ASSERT(sid); > > contain_all_digits() could be simplified to: > return str[strspn(str, "0123456789")] == '\0'; > although your implementation is fine too. > > discover_sockets_and_cores() uses a fixed-size buffer and then checks > that the file name fits. I guess it would easier to use xasprintf(). > > SYS_SOCKET_DIR is only used in one place. It might be easier to > understand if the file name were just inlined. > > Thx for the suggestions, I adopted all of them, > If /sys is not mounted or does not contain the expected files, then the > number of cpus and cores will be zero, I think. But shouldn't the > runtime inability to discover cpus and cores behave the same as a > platform that can't discover cpus and cores at all? On those platforms > the various functions return the "unspec" values. > > I agree, I'll make them return *UNSPEC when there is no socket or core. > I haven't read the later patches. Do they treat "unspec" differently > from a single core and CPU? > > Yes, the single core/sockets is treated the same as multiple cores/sockets. Only "unspec" is treated differently, > I would use readdir() instead of readdir_r(). See > http://elliotth.blogspot.com/2012/10/how-not-to-use-readdirr3.html for > more information. > > Thx for pointing out and sharing the link, change back to use readdir() > Acked-by: Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> > Consider there are still a number of changes, I'll repost it in next series. Thanks, Alex Wang, _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
