On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 7:02 PM, Igor Mammedov <imamm...@redhat.com> wrote:
> diff --git a/numa.c b/numa.c
> index e01cb54..b6e71bc 100644
> --- a/numa.c
> +++ b/numa.c
> @@ -294,9 +294,10 @@ static void validate_numa_cpus(void)
> g_free(seen_cpus);
> }
>
> -void parse_numa_opts(MachineClass *mc)
> +void parse_numa_opts(MachineState *ms)
> {
> int i;
> + MachineClass *mc = MACHINE_GET_CLASS(ms);
>
> for (i = 0; i < MAX_NODES; i++) {
> numa_info[i].node_cpu = bitmap_new(max_cpus);
> @@ -378,14 +379,16 @@ void parse_numa_opts(MachineClass *mc)
> * rule grouping VCPUs by socket so that VCPUs from the same
> socket
> * would be on the same node.
> */
> + if (!mc->cpu_index_to_instance_props) {
> + error_report("default CPUs to NUMA node mapping isn't
> supported");
> + exit(1);
> + }
>
Just trying to understand the impact of the above enforcement. So targets
and machine types that don't define ->cpu_index_to_instance_props() are
expected not to boot ? Shouldn't they have a default to fall back upon ?
Regards,
Bharata.
