On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 10:05 PM Vitaly Kuznetsov [off-list ref] 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 <redacted>
Reviewed-by: Anup Patel <redacted>
Thanks,
Anup
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
---
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