[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ca25cf55-dcc8-9df4-a286-3c65a26803cd@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2021 16:58:36 +0100
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>
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 16:55, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> - Always kvm_arm_default_max_vcpus to make the output independent on 'if
>> (kvm)'.
> This. Between two useless numbers, I prefer the one that doesn't
> introduce any userspace visible changes.
Fair enough, I'm not going to override you---but please add a comment
that says
/*
* arm64 treats KVM_CAP_NR_CPUS different from all other
* architectures, as it does not bound it to num_online_cpus().
* It should not matter much because this is just an advisory
* value.
*/
or something like that.
Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists