On 2015/7/21 23:09, Ian Jackson wrote:
Chen, Tiejun writes ("Re: [v10][PATCH 11/16] tools/libxl: detect and avoid conflicts
with RDM"):
+static void
+add_rdm_entry(libxl__gc *gc, libxl_domain_config *d_config,
+ uint64_t rdm_start, uint64_t rdm_size, int rdm_policy)
+{
+ d_config->num_rdms++;
+ d_config->rdms = libxl__realloc(NOGC, d_config->rdms,
+ d_config->num_rdms * sizeof(libxl_device_rdm));
+
+ d_config->rdms[d_config->num_rdms - 1].start = rdm_start;
+ d_config->rdms[d_config->num_rdms - 1].size = rdm_size;
+ d_config->rdms[d_config->num_rdms - 1].policy = rdm_policy;
+}
But, I wrote:
Can I suggest a function
void add_rdm_entry(libxl__gc *gc, libxl_domain_config *d_config,
uint64_t rdm_start, uint64_t rdm_size, int rdm_policy)
which assumes that d_config->num_rdms is set correctly, and increments
it ?
(Please put the increment at the end so that the assignments are to
->rdms[d_config->num_rdms], or perhaps make a convenience alias.)
Note the last paragraph.
This is now the third time I have posted that text. It is the fifth
request or clarification I have had to make about this very small
area. I have to say that I'm finding this rather frustrating.
Sorry, I just ignore the line in brackets since I always think this kind
of thing is often not a big deal, and next time I should pay more
attention to the (). But indeed, before I post this whole patch online I
also picked up this chunk of code to ask you to take a look that. This
manner means I'm not very sure if I'm addressing this properly. But I
didn't get a further response, so I guess that should work for you and
then I posted the whole online.
Now back on our problem,
static void
add_rdm_entry(libxl__gc *gc, libxl_domain_config *d_config,
uint64_t rdm_start, uint64_t rdm_size, int rdm_policy)
{
d_config->rdms = libxl__realloc(NOGC, d_config->rdms,
(d_config->num_rdms+1) * sizeof(libxl_device_rdm));
d_config->rdms[d_config->num_rdms].start = rdm_start;
d_config->rdms[d_config->num_rdms].size = rdm_size;
d_config->rdms[d_config->num_rdms].policy = rdm_policy;
d_config->num_rdms++;
}
Does this work for you? If I'm still wrong, please correct this function
directly to cost you less.
Thanks
Tiejun
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
