On Tue, 19 Jan 2021 05:04:01 -0500
Janosch Frank wrote:
> The number reported by the query is N-1 and I think people reading the
> sysfs file would expect N instead. For users creating VMs there's no
> actual difference because KVM's limit is currently below the UV's
> limit.
>
> The naming of t
On Tue, 19 Jan 2021 05:04:01 -0500
Janosch Frank wrote:
> The number reported by the query is N-1 and I think people reading the
> sysfs file would expect N instead. For users creating VMs there's no
> actual difference because KVM's limit is currently below the UV's
> limit.
>
> The naming of t
On 19.01.21 11:04, Janosch Frank wrote:
> The number reported by the query is N-1 and I think people reading the
> sysfs file would expect N instead. For users creating VMs there's no
> actual difference because KVM's limit is currently below the UV's
> limit.
>
> The naming of the field is a b
On 1/19/21 11:11 AM, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>
>
> On 19.01.21 11:04, Janosch Frank wrote:
>> The number reported by the query is N-1 and I think people reading the
>> sysfs file would expect N instead. For users creating VMs there's no
>> actual difference because KVM's limit is currently b
On 19.01.21 11:15, Janosch Frank wrote:
> On 1/19/21 11:11 AM, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 19.01.21 11:04, Janosch Frank wrote:
>>> The number reported by the query is N-1 and I think people reading the
>>> sysfs file would expect N instead. For users creating VMs there's no
>>> act
The number reported by the query is N-1 and I think people reading the
sysfs file would expect N instead. For users creating VMs there's no
actual difference because KVM's limit is currently below the UV's
limit.
The naming of the field is a bit misleading. Number in this context is
used like ID a
6 matches
Mail list logo
