On 28.05.19 14:53, Cornelia Huck wrote: > On Tue, 28 May 2019 13:00:30 +0200 > Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Paolo, Radim, >> >> would you consider this patch (or the full series) as 5.2 material or 5.3 material? > > FWIW, I'd consider this patch 5.2 material, as we're currently relaying > wrong values to userspace. Agreed. I will add cc stable and queue for master. What is our opinion about kselftest? Are we merging testtools changes also only during the merge window? > >> >> >> On 23.05.19 18:43, Thomas Huth wrote: >>> KVM_CAP_MAX_VCPU_ID is currently always reporting KVM_MAX_VCPU_ID on all >>> architectures. However, on s390x, the amount of usable CPUs is determined >>> during runtime - it is depending on the features of the machine the code >>> is running on. Since we are using the vcpu_id as an index into the SCA >>> structures that are defined by the hardware (see e.g. the sca_add_vcpu() >>> function), it is not only the amount of CPUs that is limited by the hard- >>> ware, but also the range of IDs that we can use. >>> Thus KVM_CAP_MAX_VCPU_ID must be determined during runtime on s390x, too. >>> So the handling of KVM_CAP_MAX_VCPU_ID has to be moved from the common >>> code into the architecture specific code, and on s390x we have to return >>> the same value here as for KVM_CAP_MAX_VCPUS. >>> This problem has been discovered with the kvm_create_max_vcpus selftest. >>> With this change applied, the selftest now passes on s390x, too. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> arch/mips/kvm/mips.c | 3 +++ >>> arch/powerpc/kvm/powerpc.c | 3 +++ >>> arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c | 1 + >>> arch/x86/kvm/x86.c | 3 +++ >>> virt/kvm/arm/arm.c | 3 +++ >>> virt/kvm/kvm_main.c | 2 -- >>> 6 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >
