Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Thu, 24 Mar 2022 01:15:39 +0000
From:   Oliver Upton <oupton@google.com>
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        mlevitsk@redhat.com, jmattson@google.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] Documentation: KVM: add API issues section
Message-ID: <YjvGO0Q8DEeR52i4@google.com>
References: <20220322110712.222449-1-pbonzini@redhat.com>
 <20220322110712.222449-4-pbonzini@redhat.com>
 <Yjtj8qESPWIL221r@google.com>
 <a35f9408-9d54-654c-6639-64192f03ba3b@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <a35f9408-9d54-654c-6639-64192f03ba3b@redhat.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 10:32:50PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 3/23/22 19:16, Oliver Upton wrote:
> > Do you think we should vent about our mistakes inline with the
> > descriptions of the corresponding UAPI? One example that comes to mind
> > is ARM's CNTV_CVAL_EL0/CNTVCT_EL0 mixup, which is mentioned in 4.68
> > 'KVM_SET_ONE_REG'. That, of course, doesn't cover the
> > previously-undocumented bits of UAPI that are problematic:)
> 
> It depends.  My intention was to use this document more for hidden
> interdependencies, in this case between KVM_GET_SUPPORTED_CPUID and
> KVM_CREATE_IRQCHIP, KVM_ENABLE_CAP(KVM_CAP_IRQCHIP_SPLIT),
> KVM_CAP_TSC_DEADLINE_TIMER.

Ah good point. I agree bad cross interactions need to be called out
separately.

Thanks!

--
Oliver