[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 2/4] libxc/xentrace: Replace xc_tbuf_set_cpu_mask with CPU mask with xc_cpumap_t instead of uint32_t
On 06/13/2014 09:41 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: We replace the implementation of xc_tbuf_set_cpu_mask with an xc_cpumap_t instead of a uint32_t. This means we can use an arbitrary bitmap without being limited to the 32-bits as previously we were. Furthermore since there is only one user of xc_tbuf_set_cpu_mask we just replace it and its user in one go. We also add an macro which can be used by both libxc and xentrace. And update the man page to describe this behavior. Signed-off-by: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx> xentrace side looks good to me, with one minor thing... @@ -513,23 +513,66 @@ static struct t_struct *map_tbufs(unsigned long tbufs_mfn, unsigned int num, return &tbufs; }+void print_cpu_mask(xc_cpumap_t mask, int bits)+{ + unsigned int v, had_printed = 0; + int i; + + fprintf(stderr, "change cpumask to 0x"); + + for ( i = DIV_ROUND_UP(bits, 8); i >= 0; i-- ) + { + v = mask[i]; + if ( v || had_printed ) { + fprintf(stderr,"%x", v); + had_printed = 1; + } + } + fprintf(stderr, "\n"); If I'm reading this right, if the user enters "-c 0x0", the output of this will be as follows: change cpumask to 0xMaybe we should add "i==0" (or "!i") to the conditions under which it will print the mask? -George _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |