On 07.12.2011, at 08:19, Matt Evans <matt@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 07/12/11 17:34, Sasha Levin wrote: >> On Wed, 2011-12-07 at 17:17 +1100, Matt Evans wrote: >>> On 06/12/11 19:20, Sasha Levin wrote: >>>> Why is it getting moved out of generic code? >>>> >>>> This is used to determine the maximum amount of vcpus supported by the >>>> host for a single guest, and as far as I know KVM_CAP_NR_VCPUS and >>>> KVM_CAP_MAX_VCPUS are not arch specific. >>> >>> I checked api.txt and you're right, it isn't arch-specific. I assumed it was, >>> because PPC KVM doesn't support it ;-) I've dropped this patch and in its place >>> implemented the api.txt suggestion of "if KVM_CAP_NR_VCPUS fails, use 4" instead >>> of die(); you'll see that when I repost. >>> >>> This will have the effect of PPC being limited to 4 CPUs until the kernel >>> supports that CAP. (I'll see about this part too.) >> >> I went to look at which limitation PPC places on amount of vcpus in >> guest, and saw this in kvmppc_core_vcpu_create() in the book3s code: >> >> vcpu = kvmppc_core_vcpu_create(kvm, id); >> vcpu->arch.wqp = &vcpu->wq; >> if (!IS_ERR(vcpu)) >> kvmppc_create_vcpu_debugfs(vcpu, id); >> >> This is wrong, right? The VCPU is dereferenced before actually checking >> that it's not an error. > > Yeah, that's b0rk. Alex, a patch below. :) Thanks :). Will apply asap but don't have a real keyboard today :). I suppose this is stable material? Alex > -- 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
