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;
Message-ID: <08dab49f-9ca4-4978-4482-1815cf168e74@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 29 Sep 2022 15:26:03 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.2.1
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: x86: disable on 32-bit unless CONFIG_BROKEN
To:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
        Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@redhat.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org
References: <20220926165112.603078-1-pbonzini@redhat.com>
 <YzMt24/14n1BVdnI@google.com>
 <ed74c9a9d6a0d2fd2ad8bd98214ad36e97c243a0.camel@redhat.com>
 <15291c3f-d55c-a206-9261-253a1a33dce1@redhat.com>
 <YzRycXDnWgMDgbD7@google.com>
 <ad97d0671774a873175c71c6435763a33569f669.camel@redhat.com>
 <YzSKhUEg3L1eMKOR@google.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <YzSKhUEg3L1eMKOR@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 9/28/22 19:55, Sean Christopherson wrote:
>> As far as my opinion goes I do volunteer to test this code more often,
>> and I do not want to see the 32 bit KVM support be removed*yet*.
>
> Yeah, I 100% agree that it shouldn't be removed until we have equivalent test
> coverage.  But I do think it should an "off-by-default" sort of thing.  Maybe
> BROKEN is the wrong dependency though?  E.g. would EXPERT be a better option?

Yeah, maybe EXPERT is better but I'm not sure of the equivalent test 
coverage.  32-bit VMX/SVM kvm-unit-tests are surely a good idea, but 
what's wrong with booting an older guest?

Paolo