[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [libvirt] [PATCH 2/3] docs, conf, schema: add support for shared memory mapping



On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 12:40:48PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 01:19:25PM +0200, Martin Kletzander wrote:
On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 10:20:01AM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 09:47:45AM +0200, Martin Kletzander wrote:
>>On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 04:46:27PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>>>On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 05:36:58PM +0200, Ján Tomko wrote:
>>>>On 09/08/2014 01:40 PM, Martin Kletzander wrote:
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Martin Kletzander <mkletzan redhat com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>  docs/formatdomain.html.in                          |  7 +++-
>>>>>  docs/schemas/domaincommon.rng                      |  5 +++
>>>>>  src/conf/cpu_conf.c                                | 25 +++++++++++-
>>>>>  src/conf/cpu_conf.h                                |  7 ++--
>>>>>  .../qemuxml2argv-cpu-numa-memshared.xml            | 28 ++++++++++++++
>>>>>  .../qemuxml2argv-hugepages-shared.xml              | 45 ++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>  tests/qemuxml2xmltest.c                            |  2 +
>>>>>  7 files changed, 113 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>>>>  create mode 100644 tests/qemuxml2argvdata/qemuxml2argv-cpu-numa-memshared.xml
>>>>>  create mode 100644 tests/qemuxml2argvdata/qemuxml2argv-hugepages-shared.xml
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/docs/formatdomain.html.in b/docs/formatdomain.html.in
>>>>> index 94236dd..b284d6e 100644
>>>>> --- a/docs/formatdomain.html.in
>>>>> +++ b/docs/formatdomain.html.in
>>>>> @@ -1105,7 +1105,7 @@
>>>>>      ...
>>>>>      &lt;numa&gt;
>>>>>        &lt;cell id='0' cpus='0-3' memory='512000'/&gt;
>>>>> -      &lt;cell id='1' cpus='4-7' memory='512000'/&gt;
>>>>> +      &lt;cell id='1' cpus='4-7' memory='512000' memShared='on'/&gt;
>>>>
>>>>I wonder if "shared='on'" would be enough, avoiding the need for a multi-word
>>>>attribute.
>>>
>>>Or how about   access="shared|private"   ?
>>>
>>
>>I prepended the "mem" so that it is visible that it has something to
>>do with the memory, not the whole node.  But I'm OK with pushing
>>shared= as well.  Using access= seems too ambiguously worded to me,
>>although if most of you agree...
>
>Sure, memAccess is fine with me.
>

Is there any possibility of that option having another value (in the
future)?  Otherwise shared= seems more appropriate to me.  Let's see
what others think, so I can finally get rid of this problem :)

I prefer the approach of having values reflect the usage, as 'shared' vs
'private' for the value is clearer than  'on' vs 'off' IMHO.


OK, it makes more sense when you put it like that.  I'll send a v2 to
make sure everyone agrees on all three patches.

Martin

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]