[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ebfa56a6-d444-e82e-bf0d-946765c7f8ae@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2021 16:50:23 +0100
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
Cc: kvm@...r.kernel.org, Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@...hat.com>,
Andrew Jones <drjones@...hat.com>,
Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...nel.org>,
Aleksandar Markovic <aleksandar.qemu.devel@...il.com>,
Anup Patel <anup.patel@....com>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...abs.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>, kvm-ppc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-mips@...r.kernel.org,
kvm-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] KVM: arm64: Cap KVM_CAP_NR_VCPUS by KVM_CAP_MAX_VCPUS
On 11/16/21 14:23, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> (I'm about to send v2 as we have s390 sorted out.)
>
> So what do we decide about ARM?
> - Current approach (kvm->arch.max_vcpus/kvm_arm_default_max_vcpus()
> depending on 'if (kvm)') - that would be my preference.
That would be mine too.
Paolo
> - Always kvm_arm_default_max_vcpus to make the output independent on 'if
> (kvm)'.
> - keep the status quo (drop the patch).
Powered by blists - more mailing lists