| Message ID | 20211116163443.88707-5-vkuznets@redhat.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | KVM: Cap KVM_CAP_NR_VCPUS by KVM_CAP_MAX_VCPUS and re-purpose it on x86 | expand |
On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 10:05 PM Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com> wrote: > > It doesn't make sense to return the recommended maximum number of > vCPUs which exceeds the maximum possible number of vCPUs. > > Signed-off-by: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com> Looks good to me. For KVM RISC-V: Acked-by: Anup Patel <anup.patel@wdc.com> Reviewed-by: Anup Patel <anup.patel@wdc.com> Thanks, Anup > --- > arch/riscv/kvm/vm.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/arch/riscv/kvm/vm.c b/arch/riscv/kvm/vm.c > index 26399df15b63..fb18af34a4b5 100644 > --- a/arch/riscv/kvm/vm.c > +++ b/arch/riscv/kvm/vm.c > @@ -74,7 +74,7 @@ int kvm_vm_ioctl_check_extension(struct kvm *kvm, long ext) > r = 1; > break; > case KVM_CAP_NR_VCPUS: > - r = num_online_cpus(); > + r = min_t(unsigned int, num_online_cpus(), KVM_MAX_VCPUS); > break; > case KVM_CAP_MAX_VCPUS: > r = KVM_MAX_VCPUS; > -- > 2.33.1 >
diff --git a/arch/riscv/kvm/vm.c b/arch/riscv/kvm/vm.c index 26399df15b63..fb18af34a4b5 100644 --- a/arch/riscv/kvm/vm.c +++ b/arch/riscv/kvm/vm.c @@ -74,7 +74,7 @@ int kvm_vm_ioctl_check_extension(struct kvm *kvm, long ext) r = 1; break; case KVM_CAP_NR_VCPUS: - r = num_online_cpus(); + r = min_t(unsigned int, num_online_cpus(), KVM_MAX_VCPUS); break; case KVM_CAP_MAX_VCPUS: r = KVM_MAX_VCPUS;
It doesn't make sense to return the recommended maximum number of vCPUs which exceeds the maximum possible number of vCPUs. Signed-off-by: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com> --- arch/riscv/kvm/vm.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)