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:   Thu, 20 Jan 2022 17:17:48 +0000
From:   Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Cc:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        aleksandar.qemu.devel@gmail.com, alexandru.elisei@arm.com,
        anup.patel@wdc.com, aou@eecs.berkeley.edu, atish.patra@wdc.com,
        borntraeger@linux.ibm.com, bp@alien8.de, catalin.marinas@arm.com,
        chenhuacai@kernel.org, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com,
        frankja@linux.ibm.com, frederic@kernel.org, gor@linux.ibm.com,
        hca@linux.ibm.com, james.morse@arm.com, jmattson@google.com,
        joro@8bytes.org, luto@kernel.org, maz@kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com,
        mpe@ellerman.id.au, nsaenzju@redhat.com, palmer@dabbelt.com,
        paulmck@kernel.org, paul.walmsley@sifive.com, peterz@infradead.org,
        suzuki.poulose@arm.com, svens@linux.ibm.com, tglx@linutronix.de,
        tsbogend@alpha.franken.de, vkuznets@redhat.com,
        wanpengli@tencent.com, will@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] kvm/mips: rework guest entry logic
Message-ID: <YemZPAgGsbiUokZk@google.com>
References: <20220119105854.3160683-1-mark.rutland@arm.com>
 <20220119105854.3160683-5-mark.rutland@arm.com>
 <20220120164455.GA15464@C02TD0UTHF1T.local>
 <a2b628b4-907c-4e15-df91-18c0db099228@redhat.com>
 <20220120171551.GB15464@C02TD0UTHF1T.local>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20220120171551.GB15464@C02TD0UTHF1T.local>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jan 20, 2022, Mark Rutland wrote:
> Longer-term MIPS should move to a loop like everyone else has:
> 
> 	for (;;) {
> 		status = kvm_mips_enter_exit_vcpu();
> 
> 		if (handle_exit(status))
> 			break;
> 		
> 		...
> 	}
> 
> ... which is far easier to manage.

I don't suppose we can just remove MIPS "support"?  And PPC while we're at it?  :-D