>>> On 14.01.15 at 12:06, <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> wrote:
> May I suggest the following sylistic changes:
>
> 2 vnodes, 20 vcpus:
> 1: pnode 0, vcpus {1-9}
> 0000000000000000 - 000000005dc00000
> 2: pnode 1, vcpus {10-20}
> 000000005dc00000 - 00000000bb000000
> 0000000100000000 - 0000000100800000
>
> You have already stated 2 vnodes, so "vnode $X" is redundant as the list
> index. The vcpus are exceedingly likely to be consecutively allocated,
> and cpumask_scnprintf() is a very concise way of representing them (and
> will reduce your code quite a bit).
You mean bitmap_scnprintf() - cpumask_scnprintf() is not suitable for
dealing with vCPU-s.
Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
