On 16.04.2025 16:19, Daniel P. Smith wrote: > On 4/16/25 09:54, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 16.04.2025 15:42, Daniel P. Smith wrote: >>> >>> On 4/10/25 08:08, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 08.04.2025 18:07, Alejandro Vallejo wrote: >>>>> From: "Daniel P. Smith" <dpsm...@apertussolutions.com> >>>>> >>>>> Introduce the `cpus` property, named as such for dom0less compatibility, >>>>> that >>>>> represents the maximum number of vpcus to allocate for a domain. In the >>>>> device >>>> >>>> Nit: vcpus >>> >>> I agree with you here, the issue is that it was requested that we keep >>> this field in line with Arm's DT, and they unfortunately used `cpus` to >>> specify the vcpu allocation. >> >> You misunderstood, I think. The comment was on the mis-spelling in the latter >> of the quoted lines. > > Then your latter comment is that you want the internal field to be > renamed to cpu?
No? Where are you taking that from? My comment was that a log message refers to "max_vcpus", when no field / property of that name is being processed. Going back to my reply (and seeing that Alejandro understood what I meant, afaict) I see nothing ambiguous there at all. In any event, ftaod, there were three entirely independent comments in my original reply to that patch. Jan > Wouldn't that create further confusion of a physical cpu > assignment vs virtual cpu allocation? > > v/r, > dps >
