Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Fri, 21 May 2021 11:08:15 -0700 (PDT)
Subject:     Re: [PATCH v18 00/18] KVM RISC-V Support
In-Reply-To: <YKfyR5jUu3HMvYg5@kroah.com>
CC:     pbonzini@redhat.com, anup@brainfault.org,
        Anup Patel <Anup.Patel@wdc.com>,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
        aou@eecs.berkeley.edu, corbet@lwn.net, graf@amazon.com,
        Atish Patra <Atish.Patra@wdc.com>,
        Alistair Francis <Alistair.Francis@wdc.com>,
        Damien Le Moal <Damien.LeMoal@wdc.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        kvm-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-staging@lists.linux.dev
From:   Palmer Dabbelt <palmerdabbelt@google.com>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Message-ID: <mhng-122345f7-47d9-4509-8ae6-ce1da912fc00@palmerdabbelt-glaptop>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (MHng)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 21 May 2021 10:47:51 PDT (-0700), Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 07:21:12PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> On 21/05/21 19:13, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
>> > >
>> >
>> > I don't view this code as being in a state where it can be
>> > maintained, at least to the standards we generally set within the
>> > kernel.  The ISA extension in question is still subject to change, it
>> > says so right at the top of the H extension <https://github.com/riscv/riscv-isa-manual/blob/master/src/hypervisor.tex#L4>
>> >
>> >   {\bf Warning! This draft specification may change before being
>> > accepted as standard by the RISC-V Foundation.}
>>
>> To give a complete picture, the last three relevant changes have been in
>> August 2019, November 2019 and May 2020.  It seems pretty frozen to me.
>>
>> In any case, I think it's clear from the experience with Android that
>> the acceptance policy cannot succeed.  The only thing that such a policy
>> guarantees, is that vendors will use more out-of-tree code.  Keeping a
>> fully-developed feature out-of-tree for years is not how Linux is run.
>>
>> > I'm not sure where exactly the line for real hardware is, but for
>> > something like this it would at least involve some chip that is
>> > widely availiable and needs the H extension to be useful
>>
>> Anup said that "quite a few people have already implemented RISC-V
>> H-extension in hardware as well and KVM RISC-V works on real HW as well".
>> Those people would benefit from having KVM in the Linus tree.
>
> Great, but is this really true?  If so, what hardware has this?  I have
> a new RISC-V device right here next to me, what would I need to do to
> see if this is supported in it or not?

You can probe the misa register, it should have the H bit set if it 
supports the H extension.

> If this isn't in any hardware that anyone outside of
> internal-to-company-prototypes, then let's wait until it really is in a
> device that people can test this code on.
>
> What's the rush to get this merged now if no one can use it?
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h