On 17/01/2019 17:10, anshul wrote:
>
> On 14/09/2017 13:58, Dario Faggioli wrote:
>> On Thu, 2017-09-14 at 08:42 +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>>> --- a/tools/libxc/include/xenctrl.h
>>>> +++ b/tools/libxc/include/xenctrl.h
>>>> @@ -1077,17 +1077,21 @@ typedef struct xc_cpupoolinfo {
>>>> #define XC_CPUPOOL_POOLID_ANY 0xFFFFFFFF
>>>> +typedef xen_sysctl_sched_param_t xc_schedparam_t;
>>>> +
>>>> /**
>>>> * Create a new cpupool.
>>>> *
>>>> * @parm xc_handle a handle to an open hypervisor interface
>>>> * @parm ppoolid pointer to the new cpupool id (in/out)
>>>> * @parm sched_id id of scheduler to use for pool
>>>> + * @parm sched_param parameter of the scheduler of the cpupool eg.
>>>> runq for credit2
>>> I would drop "eg. runq for credit2"
>>>
>> +1
>>
>>>> --- a/tools/python/xen/lowlevel/xc/xc.c
>>>> +++ b/tools/python/xen/lowlevel/xc/xc.c
>>>> @@ -1704,6 +1704,7 @@ static PyObject *pyxc_cpupool_create(XcObject
>>>> *self,
>>>> PyObject *kwds)
>>>> {
>>>> uint32_t cpupool = XC_CPUPOOL_POOLID_ANY, sched =
>>>> XEN_SCHEDULER_CREDIT;
>>>> + xc_schedparam_t param;
>>>> static char *kwd_list[] = { "pool", "sched", NULL };
>>> [..]
>>> Another possibility would be to drop the cpupool python bindings
>>> completely (which I would prefer, TBH).
>>>
>> +1
> Juergen, please can you clarify on this. Do you mean that I should
> remove the
>
> complete cpupool handling from python APIs i.e remove all of pyxc_cpupool_*
>
> APIs .
Yes.
> Also, it was some time back when I floated this patch. Does the
> requirement to remove cpupool python bindings
>
> still holds.
Its not a requirement, but a suggestion.
There are hardly any users of the Python bindings and as far as we know
none of them is using them for cpupool handling.
So instead of adapting them to interface modifications removing them
seems to be the better option.
Juergen
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
