On 08/18/2010 05:26 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 01:15:55PM +0200, Jiri Denemark wrote:
Why do we need it to be exactly the same value ? nextslot is just an
efficiency optimization isn't it. ie, so instead of starting from
slot 0 and iterating over 'N' already used
There's no requirement to plug devices in ascending slot order - we can
have gaps at will with any ordering.
At this point, I'm starting to think that we can just drop this 2/2
patch and not worry about nextslot being stable across libvirtd restarts.
Which means we don't even need most of
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 04:57:17PM +0200, Jiri Denemark wrote:
There's no requirement to plug devices in ascending slot order - we can
have gaps at will with any ordering.
At this point, I'm starting to think that we can just drop this 2/2
patch and not worry about nextslot being
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 11:37:34PM +0200, Jiri Denemark wrote:
The hash iterator visits in an unpredictable order. It shouldn't matter
because for this usage, all that is important is that 'nextslot'
eventually
ends up with the largest slot ID + 1.
We don't want the first unused
Why do we need it to be exactly the same value ? nextslot is just an
efficiency optimization isn't it. ie, so instead of starting from
slot 0 and iterating over 'N' already used slots till we find a free
slot, we can get the next free slot in 1 step. As such do we really
need to worry about
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 01:15:55PM +0200, Jiri Denemark wrote:
Why do we need it to be exactly the same value ? nextslot is just an
efficiency optimization isn't it. ie, so instead of starting from
slot 0 and iterating over 'N' already used slots till we find a free
slot, we can get the
On 08/16/2010 11:08 AM, Jiri Denemark wrote:
+void
+qemuDomainPCIAddressSetUpdate(qemuDomainPCIAddressSetPtr addrs)
+{
+
+if (!addrs)
+return;
+
+virHashForEach(addrs-used, qemuDomainPCIAddressSetUpdateIter, addrs);
Does virHashForEach visit the hash table in the same
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 09:11:30AM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
On 08/16/2010 11:08 AM, Jiri Denemark wrote:
+void
+qemuDomainPCIAddressSetUpdate(qemuDomainPCIAddressSetPtr addrs)
+{
+
+if (!addrs)
+return;
+
+virHashForEach(addrs-used,
On 08/17/2010 09:18 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 09:11:30AM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
On 08/16/2010 11:08 AM, Jiri Denemark wrote:
+void
+qemuDomainPCIAddressSetUpdate(qemuDomainPCIAddressSetPtr addrs)
+{
+
+if (!addrs)
+return;
+
+
The hash iterator visits in an unpredictable order. It shouldn't matter
because for this usage, all that is important is that 'nextslot' eventually
ends up with the largest slot ID + 1.
We don't want the first unused slot, rather the last slot reservation
that was in place before the
---
src/qemu/qemu_conf.c | 40 +++-
src/qemu/qemu_conf.h |1 +
src/qemu/qemu_driver.c |2 ++
3 files changed, 38 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/qemu/qemu_conf.c b/src/qemu/qemu_conf.c
index 38d28bf..bf950f2 100644
---
11 matches
Mail list logo
