On Sat, 27 May 2017 20:43:58 +0300
Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevche...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 3:03 PM, Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuzn...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > Max virtual processor will be needed for 'extended' hypercalls supporting
> > more than 64 vCPUs. While on it, unify on 'Hyper-V' in mshyperv.c as we
> > currently have a mix, report acquired misc features as well.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuzn...@redhat.com>
> > Acked-by: K. Y. Srinivasan <k...@microsoft.com>
> > Tested-by: Simon Xiao <six...@microsoft.com>
> > Tested-by: Srikanth Myakam <v-...@microsoft.com>
>
> > + u32 max_vp_index;
> > + u32 max_lp_index;
>
> > + pr_info("Hyper-V: max %d virtual processors, %d logical
> > processors\n",
> > + ms_hyperv.max_vp_index, ms_hyperv.max_lp_index);
>
> And surprisingly no-one from the above list did not get a warning?!
Begs to question how many other warnings are they ignoring?
-- Steve
>
> %u, please.
>
