On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 02:59:07PM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote: > On Fri, 2015-09-11 at 14:43 +0100, Wei Liu wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 02:21:17PM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote: > > > On Fri, 2015-09-11 at 11:50 +0100, Ian Campbell wrote: > > > > But "is d->vnuma" corresponds to there being vnuma config for the > > > > domain. > > > > > > We discussed this IRL and concluded that we should stop trying to > > > differentiate "no vnuma configuration" from "has empty vnuma > > > configuration". > > > > > > So this code should raise this error if xc_domain_getvnuma returns > > > anything > > > other than rc == -1 && errno == XEN_EOPNOTSUPP. So the check is > > > > > > if ( rc != -1 || errno != XEN_EOPNOTSUPP ) > > > > > > > To be precise, this should be > > > > if ( rc != -1 || errno == XEN_EOPNOTSUPP ) > > > > (your if expression contradicts what you said) > > I don't think it did, but they are inverses of each other, due to the > "other than" wording in the prose. > errno == OPNOTSUPP errno != OPNOTSUPP > rc >=0 ??? Some vnuma config > rc ==-1 No vnuma config(*) Some other error > > (*) is the only situation which is allowed, which is what I described in > the text. > > But the if needs to reject the other 3 cases, so it is in the inverse test. > rc != -1 covers the top row, and errno != OPNOTSUPP covers the second > column, if either are true then we do not want to proceed. >
Oh, right, I misinterpreted your expression. Sorry for the noise. Wei. > Ian. _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
