On 28.05.19 14:53, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Tue, 28 May 2019 13:00:30 +0200
> Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>
>> Paolo, Radim,
>>
>> would you consider this patch (or the full series) as 5.2 material or 5.3
>> material?
>
> FWIW, I'd consider this patch 5.2 material, as we're currently relay
On Tue, 28 May 2019 13:00:30 +0200
Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> Paolo, Radim,
>
> would you consider this patch (or the full series) as 5.2 material or 5.3
> material?
FWIW, I'd consider this patch 5.2 material, as we're currently relaying
wrong values to userspace.
>
>
> On 23.05.19 18:4
Paolo, Radim,
would you consider this patch (or the full series) as 5.2 material or 5.3
material?
On 23.05.19 18:43, Thomas Huth wrote:
> KVM_CAP_MAX_VCPU_ID is currently always reporting KVM_MAX_VCPU_ID on all
> architectures. However, on s390x, the amount of usable CPUs is determined
> during
On 23.05.19 18:43, Thomas Huth wrote:
> KVM_CAP_MAX_VCPU_ID is currently always reporting KVM_MAX_VCPU_ID on all
> architectures. However, on s390x, the amount of usable CPUs is determined
> during runtime - it is depending on the features of the machine the code
> is running on. Since we are using
On Thu, 23 May 2019 18:43:08 +0200
Thomas Huth wrote:
In the subject: s/unusabled/unusable/
> KVM_CAP_MAX_VCPU_ID is currently always reporting KVM_MAX_VCPU_ID on all
> architectures. However, on s390x, the amount of usable CPUs is determined
> during runtime - it is depending on the features of
On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 06:43:08PM +0200, Thomas Huth wrote:
> KVM_CAP_MAX_VCPU_ID is currently always reporting KVM_MAX_VCPU_ID on all
> architectures. However, on s390x, the amount of usable CPUs is determined
> during runtime - it is depending on the features of the machine the code
> is running
6 matches
Mail list logo