On 08.04.2022 11:39, Luca Fancellu wrote: > > >> On 8 Apr 2022, at 10:10, Jan Beulich <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On 08.04.2022 10:45, Luca Fancellu wrote: >>> @@ -106,6 +106,8 @@ struct xen_domctl_createdomain { >>> /* Per-vCPU buffer size in bytes. 0 to disable. */ >>> uint32_t vmtrace_size; >>> >>> + uint32_t cpupool_id; >> >> This could do with a comment explaining default behavior. In particular >> I wonder what 0 means: Looking at cpupool_destroy() I can't see that it >> would be impossible to delete pool 0 (but there may of course be >> reasons elsewhere, e.g. preventing pool 0 to ever go empty) - Jürgen? >> Yet if pool 0 can be removed, zero being passed in here should imo not >> lead to failure of VM creation. Otoh I understand that this would >> already happen ahead of your change, preventing of which would >> apparently possible only via passing CPUPOOLID_NONE here. > > Pool-0 can’t be emptied because Dom0 is sitting there (the patch is modifying > cpupool_id only for DomUs).
But we're talking about dom0less as per the subject of the patch here. > I thought the name was self explanatory, but if I have to put a comment, would > It work something like that: > > /* Cpupool id where the domain will be assigned on creation */ I don't view this kind of comment as necessary. I was really after calling out default behavior, along the lines of "0 to disable" that you can see in patch context. Jan
