From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paolo Bonzini Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2021 15:58:36 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] KVM: arm64: Cap KVM_CAP_NR_VCPUS by KVM_CAP_MAX_VCPUS Message-Id: List-Id: References: <20211111162746.100598-1-vkuznets@redhat.com> <20211111162746.100598-2-vkuznets@redhat.com> <875ysxg0s1.fsf@redhat.com> <87k0hd8obo.wl-maz@kernel.org> <87y25onsj6.fsf@redhat.com> <875yss859c.wl-maz@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: <875yss859c.wl-maz@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Marc Zyngier , Vitaly Kuznetsov Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, Sean Christopherson , Wanpeng Li , Jim Mattson , Eduardo Habkost , Andrew Jones , Huacai Chen , Aleksandar Markovic , Anup Patel , Paul Mackerras , Michael Ellerman , kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, kvm-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 11/16/21 16:55, Marc Zyngier wrote: >> - Always kvm_arm_default_max_vcpus to make the output independent on 'if >> (kvm)'. > This. Between two useless numbers, I prefer the one that doesn't > introduce any userspace visible changes. Fair enough, I'm not going to override you---but please add a comment that says /* * arm64 treats KVM_CAP_NR_CPUS different from all other * architectures, as it does not bound it to num_online_cpus(). * It should not matter much because this is just an advisory * value. */ or something like that. Paolo