From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751485AbdFEPYd (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Jun 2017 11:24:33 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:50984 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751112AbdFEPYc (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Jun 2017 11:24:32 -0400 DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org C83A023950 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=goodmis.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=rostedt@goodmis.org Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 11:24:27 -0400 From: Steven Rostedt To: Andy Shevchenko Cc: Vitaly Kuznetsov , devel@linuxdriverproject.org, "x86@kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "K. Y. Srinivasan" , Haiyang Zhang , Stephen Hemminger , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , Jork Loeser , Simon Xiao , Andy Lutomirski Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 02/10] x86/hyper-v: stash the max number of virtual/logical processor Message-ID: <20170605112427.7994a3af@gandalf.local.home> In-Reply-To: References: <20170524120405.19079-1-vkuznets@redhat.com> <20170524120405.19079-3-vkuznets@redhat.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.14.0 (GTK+ 2.24.31; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 27 May 2017 20:43:58 +0300 Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 3:03 PM, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote: > > Max virtual processor will be needed for 'extended' hypercalls supporting > > more than 64 vCPUs. While on it, unify on 'Hyper-V' in mshyperv.c as we > > currently have a mix, report acquired misc features as well. > > > > Signed-off-by: Vitaly Kuznetsov > > Acked-by: K. Y. Srinivasan > > Tested-by: Simon Xiao > > Tested-by: Srikanth Myakam > > > + u32 max_vp_index; > > + u32 max_lp_index; > > > + pr_info("Hyper-V: max %d virtual processors, %d logical processors\n", > > + ms_hyperv.max_vp_index, ms_hyperv.max_lp_index); > > And surprisingly no-one from the above list did not get a warning?! Begs to question how many other warnings are they ignoring? -- Steve > > %u, please. >