On Thu, May 05, 2016 at 10:39:56 +0200, Andrea Bolognani wrote: > On Thu, 2016-05-05 at 10:00 +0200, Jiri Denemark wrote: > > > > > > I guess we could skip all the details and just give the user > > > > > > <vcpus max='255' suggested='96'/> > > > > > > so they don't have to implement the logic themselves. But > > > reporting the KVM limits without taking QEMU limits into > > > consideration is not the way to go, I think. > > > > Yes. I didn't want to say we should only report the number from KVM, I > > meant we should only show the number that is applicable to a KVM domain > > of the particular machine type. That is, both KVM and QEMU limits > > combined into a single number which gives the real limit. > > Okay :) > > But if we don't change 'virsh maxvcpus --type kvm' to report > the computed limit, instead of just the KVM limit as it does > now, the problem reported by Shivaprasad will still exist... I think that should be fixed by documenting that the old API and virsh command report bad results and should not be used rather than trying to add syntax sugar that will pull the data from a different place.
Description: Digital signature