On Sat, 27 May 2017 20:43:58 +0300 Andy Shevchenko <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 3:03 PM, Vitaly Kuznetsov <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> > > Acked-by: K. Y. Srinivasan <[email protected]> > > Tested-by: Simon Xiao <[email protected]> > > Tested-by: Srikanth Myakam <[email protected]> > > > + 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. > _______________________________________________ devel mailing list [email protected] http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
