[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <DS0PR11MB63735816188919680E100046DC329@DS0PR11MB6373.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2022 02:13:47 +0000
From: "Wang, Wei W" <wei.w.wang@...el.com>
To: "Christopherson,, Sean" <seanjc@...gle.com>
CC: "pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
"dmatlack@...gle.com" <dmatlack@...gle.com>,
"vipinsh@...gle.com" <vipinsh@...gle.com>,
"ajones@...tanamicro.com" <ajones@...tanamicro.com>,
"eric.auger@...hat.com" <eric.auger@...hat.com>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v1 01/18] KVM: selftests/kvm_util: use array of pointers
to maintain vcpus in kvm_vm
On Thursday, October 27, 2022 11:27 PM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> Yeah, just allocate the max for now, though the array still needs to be
> dynamically allocated based on the actual maximum number of vCPUs. Oh, duh,
> we can do the easy thing and just bump KVM_MAX_VCPUS to 1024 to match
> KVM. And then assert that
> kvm_check_cap(KVM_CAP_MAX_VCPUS) == KVM_CAP_MAX_VCPUS in
> kvm_create_max_vcpus.c.
Right. I thought about the same thing, we should update KVM_MAX_VCPUS anyway.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists