From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-mips); Fri, 22 Apr 2016 12:22:24 +0200 (CEST) Received: from e06smtp06.uk.ibm.com ([195.75.94.102]:47890 "EHLO e06smtp06.uk.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by eddie.linux-mips.org with ESMTP id S27026472AbcDVKWVw62Iz convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Apr 2016 12:22:21 +0200 Received: from localhost by e06smtp06.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Fri, 22 Apr 2016 11:22:16 +0100 Received: from d06dlp03.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (9.149.20.15) by e06smtp06.uk.ibm.com (192.168.101.136) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; Fri, 22 Apr 2016 11:22:14 +0100 X-IBM-Helo: d06dlp03.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com X-IBM-MailFrom: cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com X-IBM-RcptTo: linux-mips@linux-mips.org Received: from b06cxnps4074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay11.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.196]) by d06dlp03.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FCF21B08061 for ; Fri, 22 Apr 2016 11:22:59 +0100 (BST) Received: from d06av09.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av09.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.37.250]) by b06cxnps4074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id u3MAMESW3473856 for ; Fri, 22 Apr 2016 10:22:14 GMT Received: from d06av09.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by d06av09.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id u3MAMDNG007762 for ; Fri, 22 Apr 2016 04:22:13 -0600 Received: from gondolin (dyn-9-152-224-197.boeblingen.de.ibm.com [9.152.224.197]) by d06av09.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVin) with ESMTP id u3MAMCtg007754; Fri, 22 Apr 2016 04:22:12 -0600 Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2016 12:22:10 +0200 From: Cornelia Huck To: Greg Kurz Cc: Radim =?UTF-8?B?S3LEjW3DocWZ?= , Paolo Bonzini , james.hogan@imgtec.com, mingo@redhat.com, linux-mips@linux-mips.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, David Hildenbrand , qemu-ppc@nongnu.org, Paul Mackerras , David Gibson Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] KVM: move vcpu id checking to archs Message-ID: <20160422122210.50450345.cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <20160422112538.41b23a9d@bahia.huguette.org> References: <146124809455.32509.15232948272580716135.stgit@bahia.huguette.org> <146124811255.32509.17679765789502091772.stgit@bahia.huguette.org> <20160421160018.GA31953@potion> <20160421184500.6cb5fd8a@bahia.huguette.org> <20160421173611.GB30356@potion> <20160422112538.41b23a9d@bahia.huguette.org> Organization: IBM Deutschland Research & Development GmbH Vorsitzende des Aufsichtsrats: Martina Koederitz =?UTF-8?B?R2VzY2jDpGZ0c2bDvGhydW5nOg==?= Dirk Wittkopp Sitz der Gesellschaft: =?UTF-8?B?QsO2Ymxpbmdlbg==?= Registergericht: Amtsgericht Stuttgart, HRB 243294 X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.8.0 (GTK+ 2.24.10; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT X-TM-AS-MML: disable X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 16042210-0025-0000-0000-000014091660 Return-Path: X-Envelope-To: <"|/home/ecartis/ecartis -s linux-mips"> (uid 0) X-Orcpt: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org Original-Recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org X-archive-position: 53199 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org Errors-to: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org X-original-sender: cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com Precedence: bulk List-help: List-unsubscribe: List-software: Ecartis version 1.0.0 List-Id: linux-mips X-List-ID: linux-mips List-subscribe: List-owner: List-post: List-archive: X-list: linux-mips On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 11:25:38 +0200 Greg Kurz wrote: > On Thu, 21 Apr 2016 19:36:11 +0200 > Radim Krčmář wrote: > > > For other architectures, it is simply KVM_MAX_VCPUS. > > > > (Other architectures would not implement the capability.) > > > > So this would be KVM_CAP_PPC_MAX_VCPU_ID ? > > > >> I think this would also clarify the connection between VCPU limit and > > >> VCPU_ID limit. Or is a boolean cap better? > > >> > > > > > > Well, I'm not fan of adding a generic API to handle a corner case... > > > > I don't like it either, but I think that introducing the capability is > > worth avoided problems. > > > > I admit that having separate capabilities for the number of vcpus and the > maximum vcpu id fixes the confusion once and for all. Yes, and I think that the new max_vpcu_id cap should be generic for that reason.