On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 8:12 AM Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote:
>
> On 08.02.2024 10:13, Christian Lindig wrote:
> >> On 7 Feb 2024, at 22:04, Petr Beneš <w1be...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Add the missing `vmtrace_buf_kb` field to the OCaml bindings to match the
> >> vm.cfg configuration, correcting an oversight from its initial
> >> introduction.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Petr Beneš <w1be...@gmail.com>
> >
> > Acked-by: Christian Lindig <christian.lin...@cloud.com>
> >
> > This looks correct from an OCaml perspective. Why was the new field added
> > in the middle of the record type domctl_create_config and thus forcing
> > changes to the index of fields coming later in the record versus just
> > appending the new field to the record type?
> >
> > The critical bit is using the correct type in
> > "Int32_val(VAL_VMTRACE_BUF_KB)” that matches the type "vmtrace_buf_kb:
> > int32;” - which it does.
>
> Is this then perhaps also lacking a
>
> Fixes: 45ba9a7d7688 ("tools/[lib]xl: Add vmtrace_buf_size parameter")
>
> and hence wanting backporting?
>
> Jan
In my opinion, yes.
P.
