On Thu, Dec 01, 2022 at 11:14:43PM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote: > On Thu, 01 Dec 2022 18:29:51 +0000, > Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Could we extend your suggestion about accepting different topologies to > > effectively tolerate _any_ topology provided by userspace? KVM can > > default to the virtual topology, but a well-informed userspace could > > still provide different values to its guest. No point in trying to > > babyproofing the UAPI further, IMO. > > I think this is *exactly* what I suggested. Any valid topology should > be able to be restored, as we currently present the VM with any > topology the host HW may have. This must be preserved. Ah, I was narrowly reading into the conversation as it relates to the M2 implementation, my bad. SGTM :) -- Thanks, Oliver _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
