On 2015/7/21 23:57, Ian Jackson wrote:
Chen, Tiejun writes ("Re: [v10][PATCH 11/16] tools/libxl: detect and avoid conflicts
with RDM"):
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.
You are talking about <55ae2bb1.9030...@intel.com> I guess. I replied
to that with several comments about your prose and about the
computation of the new set of rdms.
It's true that I didn't comment on the frat that you had half-done one
of the things I had requested. It is of course a waste of my time to
be constantly re-reviewing half-done changes.
Next time I should see each line of all comments carefully. Maybe its
good way to use IRC to take your quick advice in advance, and I hope
this make you feel better. Anyway, sorry to bring this kind of
inconvenience.
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.
Yes, that is what I meant.
Good to know.
Thanks
Tiejun
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
