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;
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To:     "Liu, Jing2" <jing2.liu@intel.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Cc:     "x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>,
        "Bae, Chang Seok" <chang.seok.bae@intel.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>,
        "kvm@vger.kernel.org" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Nakajima, Jun" <jun.nakajima@intel.com>,
        Jing Liu <jing2.liu@linux.intel.com>,
        "seanjc@google.com" <seanjc@google.com>
Subject: RE: [patch 13/31] x86/fpu: Move KVMs FPU swapping to FPU core
In-Reply-To: <BL0PR11MB3252466D4A10A141F025F425A9B89@BL0PR11MB3252.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <BYAPR11MB3256B39E2A34A09FF64ECC5BA9B79@BYAPR11MB3256.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <87sfx57ycw.ffs@tglx>
 <BL0PR11MB3252466D4A10A141F025F425A9B89@BL0PR11MB3252.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Thu, 14 Oct 2021 15:08:10 +0200
Message-ID: <87zgrb69fp.ffs@tglx>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Oct 14 2021 at 08:21, Jing2 Liu wrote:
>> 
>> Once that is sorted then we can create proper infrastructure for that in the
>> FPU core code and not just expose a random function to KVM and hack it into
>> submssion.
> Yes, we need a consensus on the way we choose and then to see if need a
> kernel function for KVM usage.

The question is not 'if'. The question is 'which' functionality we need.

Thanks,

        tglx