On Tue, 14 May 2019 11:27:32 +0200 David Hildenbrand <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 14.05.19 11:25, Christian Borntraeger wrote: > > > > > > On 14.05.19 11:23, Christian Borntraeger wrote: > >> > >> > >> On 14.05.19 11:20, David Hildenbrand wrote: > >>> On 14.05.19 11:10, Christian Borntraeger wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 14.05.19 10:59, David Hildenbrand wrote: > >>>>> We can > >>>>> > >>>>> 1. Fail to start with #cpus > 240 when diag318=on > >>>>> 2. Remove the error once we support more than one SCLP response page > >>>>> > >>>>> Or > >>>>> > >>>>> 1. Allow to start with #cpus > 240 when diag318=on, but indicate only > >>>>> 240 CPUs via SCLP > >>>>> 2. Print a warning > >>>>> 3. Remove the restriction and the warning once we support more than one > >>>>> SCLP response page > >>>>> > >>>>> While I prefer the second approach (similar to defining zPCI devices > >>>>> without zpci=on), I could also live with the first approach. > >>>> > >>>> I prefer approach 1. > >>>> > >>> > >>> Isn't approach #2 what we discussed (limiting sclp, but of course to 247 > >>> CPUs), but with an additional warning? I'm confused. > >> > >> Different numbering interpretion. I was talking about 1 = "Allow to start > >> with #cpus > 240 when diag318=on, but indicate only > >> 240 CPUs via SCLP" > > > > So yes, variant 2 when I use your numbering. The only question is: do we > > need > > a warning? It probably does not hurt. > > After all, we are talking about 1 VCPU that the guest can only use by > indirect probing ... I leave that up to Collin :) I'd prefer a warning... even if it is a corner case, I think it's better to be explicit instead of silent.
