On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 12:29:31PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote: > On 03/21/2010 12:15 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >>>> Nothing easy that I can see. Each device needs 2 of these. Avi, Gleb, >>>> any objections to increasing the limit to say 16? That would give us >>>> 5 more devices to the limit of 6 per guest. >>>> >>>> >>> Increase it to 200, then. >>> >> OK. I think we'll also need a smarter allocator >> than bus->dev_count++ than we now have. Right? >> > > No, why? We'll run into problems if devices are created/removed in random order, won't we? > Eventually we'll want faster scanning than the linear search we employ > now, though. Yes I suspect with 200 entries we will :). Let's just make it 16 for now? >>> Is the limit visible to userspace? If not, we need to expose it. >>> >> I don't think it's visible: it seems to be used in a single >> place in kvm. Let's add an ioctl? Note that qemu doesn't >> need it now ... >> > > We usually expose limits via KVM_CHECK_EXTENSION(KVM_CAP_BLAH). We can > expose it via KVM_CAP_IOEVENTFD (and need to reserve iodev entries for > those). > > -- > error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function -- 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
