On Mon, Sep 13, 2021, Eduardo Habkost wrote: > On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 12:24 PM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Sep 13, 2021, Juergen Gross wrote: > > > KVM_MAX_VCPU_ID is not specifying the highest allowed vcpu-id, but the > > > number of allowed vcpu-ids. This has already led to confusion, so > > > rename KVM_MAX_VCPU_ID to KVM_MAX_VCPU_IDS to make its semantics more > > > clear > > > > My hesitation with this rename is that the max _number_ of IDs is not the same > > thing as the max allowed ID. E.g. on x86, given a capability that enumerates the > > max number of IDs, I would expect to be able to create vCPUs with arbitrary 32-bit > > x2APIC IDs so long as the total number of IDs is below the max. > > > > What name would you suggest instead? KVM_VCPU_ID_LIMIT, maybe? > > I'm assuming we are not going to redefine KVM_MAX_VCPU_ID to be an > inclusive limit. Heh, I haven't been able to come up with one, which is why I suggested the route of making it an inclusive value internally within KVM.
