Hi Andriy,
Thank you for your review.
>On 08/07/ 2025 18:26, Andriy Sultanov wrote:
> > diff --git a/tools/xentop/xentop.c b/tools/xentop/xentop.c > index
> > f5d6c19cf9..477299c883 100644 > --- a/tools/xentop/xentop.c > +++
> > b/tools/xentop/xentop.c > @@ -69,6 +70,12 @@ > > #define
> > INT_FIELD_WIDTH(n) ((unsigned int)(log10(n) + 1)) > > +/* TEMPORARY:
> > Forward declare the internal structure */ > +struct xenstat_handle { > +
> > xc_interface *xc_handle; > + /* Other members don't matter fo now */
> > > +}; > +
> What makes this temporary? Is there a follow-up patch?
This was intended as a short-term solution to access the xc_handle. Latter may
be move this to a shared header if multiple tools need access.
> Or should this be an [RFC] instead of a [PATCH]?
You're right - I'll resubmit this as an RFC patch.
> > @@ -240,6 +248,7 @@ static void usage(const char *program) >
> > "-r, --repeat-header repeat table header before each domain\n"
> > "-v, --vcpus output vcpu data\n"
> > "-b, --batch output in batch mode, no user input
> >accepted\n"
> > + "-p, --pcpus show physical CPU stats\n"
> > "-i, --iterations number of iterations before exiting\n"
> > "-f, --full-name output the full domain name (not
> >truncated)\n"
> > "-z, --dom0-first display dom0 first (ignore sorting)\n"
> Incorrect indentation here
You're correct. I'll fix both the -b and -p options to maintain consistent
alignment with the other options in the v2 RFC patch
>> @@ -1245,9 +1256,18 @@ static void top(void) >
>> do_vbd(domains[i]); > } > > - if (!batch) > + if (!batch &&
>> !show_pcpus ) > do_bottom_line(); > > + if (show_pcpus &&
>> xhandle != NULL ) { > + if (update_pcpu_stats(xhandle->xc_handle) == 0)
>> { > + print_pcpu_stats(); > + } > + else { > +
>> print("Error getting PCPU stats\n"); > + } > + } > +
> and here
Good catch on the indentation issues.
Regards,
Jahan
