On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 09:03:36AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> On 29.08.18 at 16:40, <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> wrote: > > For ARM, the call to arch_domain_create() needs to have completed before > > domain_max_vcpus() will return the correct upper bound. > > > > For each arch's dom0's, drop the temporary max_vcpus parameter, and > > allocation > > of dom0->vcpu. > > > > With d->max_vcpus now correctly configured before evtchn_init(), the poll > > mask > > can be constructed suitably for the domain, rather than for the worst-case > > setting. > > > > Due to the evtchn_init() fixes, it no longer calls domain_max_vcpus(), and > > ARM's two implementations of vgic_max_vcpus() no longer need work around the > > out-of-order call. > > > > From this point on, d->max_vcpus and d->vcpus[] are valid for any domain > > which > > can be looked up by domid. > > > > The XEN_DOMCTL_max_vcpus hypercall is modified to reject any call attempt > > with > > max != d->max_vcpus, which does match the older semantics (not that it is > > obvious from the code). The logic to allocate d->vcpu[] is dropped, but at > > this point the hypercall still needs making to allocate each vcpu. > > > > Signed-off-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> > > Acked-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> > in principle, but as said before the lack of renaming of the domctl > makes my ack dependent upon some other REST maintainer > agreeing with your position there (the more that you've added > the comment to the implementation rather than the public header).
I don't see much value in renaming something that is due to be removed soon. Wei. _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
