On 2015-07-30 23:19, Steve Rutherford wrote: > On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 11:38:20AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >> >> >> On 30/07/2015 10:37, Steve Rutherford wrote: >>> This looks a bit non-sensical, but is overprepared for the introduction >>> IOAPIC hotplug, which two patches down the line. Changing it is fine, >>> you'll just need to merge the very same change back. >> >> By "IOAPIC hotplug" you mean changing the number of reserved routes? Is >> it necessary? You could just reserve a bunch of routes depending on the >> maximum number of IOAPICs. > Hmm. Yeah, I think that might be cleaner. Thinking about it, I'm a bit nervous > about the idea of the number of reserved routes shrinking. We would have needed > to trigger an IOAPIC scan if the number of reserved routes changed. > > Jan might have an opinion here. A static preallocation is likely fine, given reasonable room. I have no idea about a good limit, though. To be safe, we could pull in someone from Intel, maybe the guy who worked on the IOAPIC refactorings in the kernel to enable hotplugging. Jan -- Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT RTC ITP SES-DE Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
