On Tue, Jun 03, 2025, James Houghton wrote: > On Mon, Jun 2, 2025 at 3:45 PM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > --- > > arch/x86/kvm/svm/sev.c | 4 ++++ > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/svm/sev.c b/arch/x86/kvm/svm/sev.c > > index a7a7dc507336..93d899454535 100644 > > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/svm/sev.c > > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/svm/sev.c > > @@ -2032,6 +2032,10 @@ static int sev_check_source_vcpus(struct kvm *dst, struct kvm *src) > > struct kvm_vcpu *src_vcpu; > > unsigned long i; > > > > + if (src->created_vcpus != atomic_read(&src->online_vcpus) || > > + dst->created_vcpus != atomic_read(&dst->online_vcpus)) > > + return -EINVAL; > > I think -EBUSY (or perhaps -EAGAIN) might be a more proper return code. Yeah, I was 50/50 on EBUSY vs EINVAL. I think I went with EINVAL mostly out of spite :-) I'll change it to EBUSY.