On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 13:38:07 +0000, Peter Maydell wrote:
> Maybe we should allow machine models to specify:
> * max_cpus (the most they can support; 1 if not set by board,
> as in current code)
> * min_cpus (the least they can support; 1 if not set by board)
> * default_cpus (what you get if you don't ask for something else;
> 1 if not set by board)
>
> Then:
> * these boards which always create a fixed number of CPUs
> should set all three to the same thing
> * boards which only create the CPUs requested by the user
> can leave them unset (as today)
> * the generic command line parsing code should stop with an
> error message if the user sets max_cpus smaller than
> the board's min_cpus setting or greater than the board's
> max_cpus, or if they set -smp to less than the board's
> min_cpus
Shouldn't we just print a warning (like we've been doing in some
boards, e.g. nuri) and upgrade smp_cpus/max_cpus to whatever value?
Changing this now could qualify as a regression.
Also, just noticed 4bd2f93 ("exynos4_boards: Silence lack
of -smp 2 warning for qtest", 2013-11-05); I don't really know how
"-smp 1" is built in qtest code, but doing as above breaks
check-qtest-aarch64.
E.
