Re: [Xen-devel] [v10][PATCH 11/16] tools/libxl: detect and avoid conflicts with RDM

[Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Chen, Tiejun writes ("Re: [v10][PATCH 11/16] tools/libxl: detect and avoid 
conflicts with RDM"):
> I hope the following can address all comments below:


You now write this:

> +static void
> +add_rdm_entry(libxl__gc *gc, libxl_domain_config *d_config,
> +              uint64_t rdm_start, uint64_t rdm_size, int rdm_policy)
> +{
> +    assert(d_config->num_rdms);
> +
> +    d_config->rdms = libxl__realloc(NOGC, d_config->rdms,
> +                            d_config->num_rdms * sizeof(libxl_device_rdm));
> +
> +    d_config->rdms[d_config->num_rdms - 1].start = rdm_start;
> +    d_config->rdms[d_config->num_rdms - 1].size = rdm_size;
> +    d_config->rdms[d_config->num_rdms - 1].policy = rdm_policy;
> +}

But, I wrote:

   Can I suggest a function

      void add_rdm_entry(libxl__gc *gc, libxl_domain_config *d_config,
                    uint64_t rdm_start, uint64_t rdm_size, int rdm_policy)

   which assumes that d_config->num_rdms is set correctly, and increments
   it ?

   (Please put the increment at the end so that the assignments are to
   ->rdms[d_config->num_rdms], or perhaps make a convenience alias.)

Did you not notice that both call sites for add_rdm_entry are preceded
by the increment ?  As I wrote earlier:

   Finding multiple occurrences of very similar code is usually a sign
   that refactoring is needed.


See also my other mail about the handling of existing rdms with
strategy=host.

Thanks,
Ian.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel