On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 03:24:37PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
The comment in kvm_max_vcpus() states that it's using the recommended
procedure from the kernel API documentation to get the max number
of vcpus that kvm supports. It is, but by always returning the
maximum number supported. The
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 03:24:37PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
The comment in kvm_max_vcpus() states that it's using the recommended
procedure from the kernel API documentation to get the max number
of vcpus that kvm supports. It is, but by always returning the
maximum number supported. The
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 03:24:37PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
The comment in kvm_max_vcpus() states that it's using the recommended
procedure from the kernel API documentation to get the max number
of vcpus that kvm supports. It is, but by always returning the
maximum number supported. The
- Original Message -
On 08/23/2013 07:24 AM, Andrew Jones wrote:
The comment in kvm_max_vcpus() states that it's using the recommended
procedure from the kernel API documentation to get the max number
of vcpus that kvm supports. It is, but by always returning the
maximum number
On 08/28/2013 01:45 AM, Andrew Jones wrote:
What I'm more worried about is what number is libvirt supposed to show
to the end user, and should libvirt enforce the lower recommended max,
or the larger kernel absolute max? Which of the two values does the QMP
'MachineInfo' type return in its
On 08/23/2013 07:24 AM, Andrew Jones wrote:
The comment in kvm_max_vcpus() states that it's using the recommended
procedure from the kernel API documentation to get the max number
of vcpus that kvm supports. It is, but by always returning the
maximum number supported. The maximum number should
The comment in kvm_max_vcpus() states that it's using the recommended
procedure from the kernel API documentation to get the max number
of vcpus that kvm supports. It is, but by always returning the
maximum number supported. The maximum number should only be used
for development purposes. qemu