[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87zgq36t64.wl-maz@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2021 09:13:55 +0000
From: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
To: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>
Cc: kvm@...r.kernel.org, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
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>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
Janosch Frank <frankja@...ux.ibm.com>, kvm-ppc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-mips@...r.kernel.org,
kvm-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] KVM: arm64: Cap KVM_CAP_NR_VCPUS by kvm_arm_default_max_vcpus()
On Tue, 16 Nov 2021 16:34:38 +0000,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> Generally, it doesn't make sense to return the recommended maximum number
> of vCPUs which exceeds the maximum possible number of vCPUs.
>
> Note: ARM64 is special as the value returned by KVM_CAP_MAX_VCPUS differs
> depending on whether it is a system-wide ioctl or a per-VM one. Previously,
> KVM_CAP_NR_VCPUS didn't have this difference and it seems preferable to
> keep the status quo. Cap KVM_CAP_NR_VCPUS by kvm_arm_default_max_vcpus()
> which is what gets returned by system-wide KVM_CAP_MAX_VCPUS.
>
> Signed-off-by: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>
Acked-by: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
M.
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists