On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 11:25:38 +0200 Greg Kurz <gk...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Apr 2016 19:36:11 +0200 > Radim Krčmář <rkrc...@redhat.com> 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.
