On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 09:51:47PM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 04:01:40PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote: > > On 04/24/2012 03:47 PM, Christian Borntraeger wrote: > > > > btw, a better place might be in kvm_devel_ioctl_check_extension_generic(). > > > > > > Possibly yes. Dont know if there are architecture specific reasons to use > > > something different than KVM_MAX_VCPUS. > > > > Okay, I'll fold the implementations unless something prevents it (unlikely). > > KVM_CAP_NR_VCPUS = "recommended max_vcpus" > KVM_CAP_MAX_VCPUS = "maximum possible value for max_vcpus" > > (commit 8c3ba334f8588e1d5) > > CAP_NR_VCPUS is architecture dependent (depends on state of scability, > testing, etc). Both KVM_CAP_MAX_VCPUS and KVM_CAP_NR_VCPUS are architecture dependent. Christian, you probably want to implement both (skipping this one patch), applied remainder, thanks. -- 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
