On 14/01/15 11:24, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> 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.
Yes, although I was actually thinking of the scnlistprintf() variant.
However, I further notice that the source data is not in an appropriate
form, so it is perhaps a less sensible suggestion.
~Andrew
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
