On 31/08/18 11:42, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 31.08.18 at 12:33, <wei.l...@citrix.com> wrote: >> 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. > I would agree if "soon" meant "soon" for sure. But we all know how things > get delayed. What I'd like to avoid is shipping 4.12 with a mis-named > domctl.
I do intend to get this fixed within the 4.12 timeframe. However, irrespective of the timeframe, this isn't a hypercall which anyone is realistically going to look at. If you want to get pedantic about naming, it should have been named set_max_vcpus from the outset. This is one example where the effort required to adjust the inconsistency completely dwarfs the outcome. ~Andrew _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
