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, 1 Sep 2022 13:53:28 +0000
From:   Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To:     Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@redhat.com>
Cc:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Suravee Suthikulpanit <suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com>,
        Li RongQing <lirongqing@baidu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/19] Revert "KVM: SVM: Introduce hybrid-AVIC mode"
Message-ID: <YxC5WI9BW+dVyXw/@google.com>
References: <20220831003506.4117148-1-seanjc@google.com>
 <20220831003506.4117148-4-seanjc@google.com>
 <17e776dccf01e03bce1356beb8db0741e2a13d9a.camel@redhat.com>
 <84c2e836d6ba4eae9fa20329bcbc1d19f8134b0f.camel@redhat.com>
 <Yw+MYLyVXvxmbIRY@google.com>
 <59206c01da236c836c58ff96c5b4123d18a28b2b.camel@redhat.com>
 <Yw+yjo4TMDYnyAt+@google.com>
 <c6e9a565d60fb602a9f4fc48f2ce635bf658f1ea.camel@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <c6e9a565d60fb602a9f4fc48f2ce635bf658f1ea.camel@redhat.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Sep 01, 2022, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> There was actually a patch series that was fixing it, but you said, just like me,
> that it is not worth it, better to have an errata in KVM, since guest should not use
> this info anyway. I didn't object to it, and neither I do now, but as you see,
> you also sometimes agree that going 100% to the spec is not worth it.
> 
> 
> I hope you understand me.

Yep.

And rereading what I wrote...  I didn't intend to imply that you personally aren't
operating in "good faith" or whatever is the right terminology.  What I was trying
to explain is why I sometimes speak in absolutes.  When there is a bug/regression
and KVM is clearly violating spec, it's not a matter of opinion; KVM is broken and
needs to be fixed.

Of course, one could argue that that's an opinion in and of itself...