On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 06:24:01PM +0200, Peter Krempa wrote:
[...]
It might hint to readers that the array is indeed sparse. Reading the
code again I now think that rather than skipping the loop the check for
vcpu should be moved into the if right below it:
if (vcpu && vcpu->cpumask)
On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 06:24:01PM +0200, Peter Krempa wrote:
On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 17:54:03 +0200, Martin Kletzander wrote:
On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 03:01:57PM +0200, Peter Krempa wrote:
>On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 13:44:10 +0200, Martin Kletzander wrote:
[...]
>> I could've pushed this as a
On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 17:54:03 +0200, Martin Kletzander wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 03:01:57PM +0200, Peter Krempa wrote:
> >On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 13:44:10 +0200, Martin Kletzander wrote:
[...]
> >> I could've pushed this as a build breaker, but I'm not really sure
> >> everyone will
On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 03:01:57PM +0200, Peter Krempa wrote:
On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 13:44:10 +0200, Martin Kletzander wrote:
MinGW complained that we might be dereferencing a NULL pointer. While
^^ Does anybody use that?
Well, if nobody uses that, feel free to send a patch removing all
On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 13:44:10 +0200, Martin Kletzander wrote:
> MinGW complained that we might be dereferencing a NULL pointer. While
^^ Does anybody use that?
> that's most probably not going to be true (now), the logic certainly
> allows for that and we might actually do this a lot in the
MinGW complained that we might be dereferencing a NULL pointer. While
that's most probably not going to be true (now), the logic certainly
allows for that and we might actually do this a lot in the future with
sparse vcpu mapping.
../../src/conf/domain_conf.c: In function
