From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Marc Zyngier Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2021 09:13:55 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] KVM: arm64: Cap KVM_CAP_NR_VCPUS by kvm_arm_default_max_vcpus() Message-Id: <87zgq36t64.wl-maz@kernel.org> List-Id: References: <20211116163443.88707-1-vkuznets@redhat.com> <20211116163443.88707-2-vkuznets@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20211116163443.88707-2-vkuznets@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Vitaly Kuznetsov Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, Paolo Bonzini , Sean Christopherson , Wanpeng Li , Jim Mattson , Eduardo Habkost , Andrew Jones , Huacai Chen , Aleksandar Markovic , Anup Patel , Paul Mackerras , Michael Ellerman , Christian Borntraeger , Janosch Frank , kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, kvm-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 16 Nov 2021 16:34:38 +0000, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote: > > Generally, it doesn't make sense to return the recommended maximum number > of vCPUs which exceeds the maximum possible number of vCPUs. > > Note: ARM64 is special as the value returned by KVM_CAP_MAX_VCPUS differs > depending on whether it is a system-wide ioctl or a per-VM one. Previously, > KVM_CAP_NR_VCPUS didn't have this difference and it seems preferable to > keep the status quo. Cap KVM_CAP_NR_VCPUS by kvm_arm_default_max_vcpus() > which is what gets returned by system-wide KVM_CAP_MAX_VCPUS. > > Signed-off-by: Vitaly Kuznetsov Acked-by: Marc Zyngier M. -- Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.