[libvirt] [PATCH V3] Expose resource control capabilites on cache bank

[Martin Kletzander]

On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 09:51:02AM +0800, Eli Qiao wrote:
>
>
>On Thursday, 6 April 2017 at 9:04 PM, Martin Kletzander wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 01:25:35PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>> > On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 08:20:56PM +0800, Eli Qiao wrote:
>> > > This patch is based on Martin's cache branch.
>> > >
>> > > This patch amends the cache bank capability as follow:
>> > >
>> > > <cache>
>> > > <bank id='0' level='3' type='unified' size='15360' unit='KiB' cpus='0-5'>
>> > > <control min='768' unit='KiB' type='unified' nallocations='4'/>
>> > > </bank>
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> > Why do we need to report 'type' on both bank & control elements. Are they
>> > really expected to have different values ?
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>There’s a discussion from https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2017-March/msg01689.html
>
>I think I made a mistake here, it should be ’scope’ instead of ’type’ here.
>

The name doesn't really matter that much, 'scope' makes a bit more
sense, 'type' is consistent with the cache bank specification, I'm fine
with any.  The big question here was if it is possible to have:

<bank type='unified'>
  <control scope='code'/>
  <control scope='data'/>
</bank>

And from what you say, the simple answer is "yes".  So we need to have
the attribute there in the control element as well.

P.S.: It would be clearly visible if you added the test case ;)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/attachments/20170407/ea466d6f/attachment-0001.sig>