On 6/28/19 9:27 AM, Andrew Jones wrote: > Also, while it's true we can always > get the max vq with next-smaller(ARM_MAX_VQ + 1), having it cached in > cpu->sve_max_vq is convenient. That said, I think we'd rather keep it.
When is it convenient, and for what? Certainly the only thing that we check after boot is the largest enabled vq not larger than x. And for that I don't see that sve_max_vq is relevant at all. Oh, something that we should also think about is -cpu foo, where foo is one of the Fujitsu thingumies. We should be able to default sve_vq_map to that which a real bit of hw actually supports. I, for one, welcome our typedef long overlords. ;-) r~
