Re: [PATCH 1/2] viridian: remove implicit limit of 64 VPs per partition

[Igor Druzhinin <igor.druzhinin@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 11/01/2021 09:16, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 11.01.2021 10:12, Paul Durrant wrote:
>>> From: Paul Durrant <xadimgnik@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> Sent: 11 January 2021 09:10
>>>
>>>> From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
>>>> Sent: 11 January 2021 09:00
>>>>
>>>> On 11.01.2021 09:45, Paul Durrant wrote:
>>>>> You can add my R-b to the patch.
>>>>
>>>> That's the unchanged patch then, including the libxl change that
>>>> I had asked about and that I have to admit I don't fully follow
>>>> Igor's responses? I'm hesitant to give an ack for that aspect of
>>>> the change, yet I suppose the libxl maintainers will defer to
>>>> x86 ones there. Alternatively Andrew or Roger could of course
>>>> ack this ...
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't think we really need specific control in xl.cfg as this is a fix 
>>> for some poorly documented
>>> semantics in the spec. The flag simply prevents the leaf magically 
>>> appearing on migrate and I think
>>> that's enough.
>>
>> ... although adding an option in xl/libxl isn't that much work, I suppose.
>>
>> Igor, would you be ok plumbing it through?
> 
> This back and forth leaves unclear to me what I should do. I
> would have asked on irc, but you're not there as it seems.

I don't see a scenario where somebody would want to opt out of unlimited
VPs per domain given the leaf with -1 is supported on all Windows versions.
I can make it configurable in the future if reports re-surface it causes
troubles somewhere.

I'd like to do the same with CPU hotplug bit (given it's not configurable
in QEMU either) but wanted to hear an opinion here?

Igor