On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 09:23:39PM +0800, Eli Qiao wrote:
>
> How about for l3:
>
>
Well, yes, kind of what you had in your patches. Wasn't it without the
'cbm_len' and 'avail'? The 'cbm_len' is avail/min, so it's redundant
and avail is the same as the size of the whole cache, right? Also
> >
> > How about for l3:
> > > reserved=“2816"/>
> >
>
>
> Well, yes, kind of what you had in your patches. Wasn't it without the
> 'cbm_len' and 'avail'? The 'cbm_len' is avail/min, so it's redundant
> and avail is the same as the size of the whole cache, right? Also
> 'reserved'
On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 08:33:12PM +0800, Eli Qiao wrote:
On Friday, 31 March 2017 at 7:19 PM, Martin Kletzander wrote:
On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 09:56:32AM +0800, Eli Qiao wrote:
>
> >
> Okay, cool, this comes better than my patches and have some differences.
> I am open with this as long as
On Friday, 31 March 2017 at 7:19 PM, Martin Kletzander wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 09:56:32AM +0800, Eli Qiao wrote:
> >
> > >
> > Okay, cool, this comes better than my patches and have some differences.
> > I am open with this as long as that it can meet cache allocation requires
> >
On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 09:56:32AM +0800, Eli Qiao wrote:
Okay, cool, this comes better than my patches and have some differences.
I am open with this as long as that it can meet cache allocation requires and
everyone will be happy.
I am ++ for this.
But I am not sure expose all of cache
>
Okay, cool, this comes better than my patches and have some differences.
I am open with this as long as that it can meet cache allocation requires and
everyone will be happy.
I am ++ for this.
But I am not sure expose all of cache information in the capabilities XML.
>
> +
> +
>
>
Signed-off-by: Martin Kletzander
---
src/conf/capabilities.c | 2 +-
tests/vircaps2xmldata/vircaps-x86_64-caches.xml | 15 +++
tests/vircaps2xmltest.c | 3 ++-
3 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)