From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:46523)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <pl@kamp.de>)
	id 1Vjofu-00025M-Qc
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 06:13:35 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pl@kamp.de>) id 1Vjofi-00029Z-Ki
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 06:13:26 -0500
Received: from mx.ipv6.kamp.de ([2a02:248:0:51::16]:34521 helo=mx01.kamp.de)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <pl@kamp.de>)
	id 1Vjofi-00029U-9M
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 06:13:14 -0500
Message-ID: <528F3C57.403@kamp.de>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 12:13:27 +0100
From: Peter Lieven <pl@kamp.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1385044625-31006-1-git-send-email-pl@kamp.de>
	<528F2EF8.9090509@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <528F2EF8.9090509@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] vl: verify if combination of cpus, sockets,
 cores and threads is sane
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc: aliguori@us.ibm.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On 22.11.2013 11:16, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 21/11/2013 15:37, Peter Lieven ha scritto:
>> -        max_cpus = qemu_opt_get_number(opts, "maxcpus", 0);
>> +        if (cpus != sockets * cores * threads) {
>> +            fprintf(stderr, "Illegal CPU layout: %d cpus with %d sockets,"
>> +                            " %d cores per socket and %d threads per core"
>> +                            " (cpus != sockets * cores * threads)\n",
>> +                            cpus, sockets, cores, threads);
>> +            exit(1);
>> +        }
> Should max_cpus be checked instead if non-zero?
>
> I see where you come from, but I think the potential for this patch to
> break some working configuration (for some definition of working) is too
> high.  Can you split out the fixes to the "fill in the blanks" logic?
I can, but the number of sockets is logal to the parse function.

What would you think is it okay to just send a warning about
the illegal config and drop the exit(1).

Peter