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:   Wed, 2 Aug 2023 09:10:46 -0700
In-Reply-To: <878ratqw2l.wl-maz@kernel.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
References: <20230722022251.3446223-1-rananta@google.com> <20230722022251.3446223-2-rananta@google.com>
 <87v8e5r6s6.wl-maz@kernel.org> <CAJHc60wtc2Usei3hKj1ykVRvBZFFCBOHMi9HCxnNvGK2dPFApA@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZMgqueePlmKvgUId@google.com> <CAJHc60xM+KsUKxtoqORnpzrRke4T-sob2uLJRMvBKwruipxnpw@mail.gmail.com>
 <878ratqw2l.wl-maz@kernel.org>
Message-ID: <ZMqABp6OdrgOtsum@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 01/12] KVM: Rename kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlb() to kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs()
From:   Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To:     Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
Cc:     Raghavendra Rao Ananta <rananta@google.com>,
        Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@linux.dev>,
        James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
        Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@kernel.org>,
        Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@huawei.com>,
        Anup Patel <anup@brainfault.org>,
        Atish Patra <atishp@atishpatra.org>,
        Jing Zhang <jingzhangos@google.com>,
        Reiji Watanabe <reijiw@google.com>,
        Colton Lewis <coltonlewis@google.com>,
        David Matlack <dmatlack@google.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kvmarm@lists.linux.dev,
        linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, kvm-riscv@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        kvm@vger.kernel.org, Gavin Shan <gshan@redhat.com>,
        "Philippe =?utf-8?Q?Mathieu-Daud=C3=A9?=" <philmd@linaro.org>,
        Shaoqin Huang <shahuang@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Aug 02, 2023, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Aug 2023 01:42:54 +0100,
> Raghavendra Rao Ananta <rananta@google.com> wrote:
> > Thanks for the suggestions; I can go with a common declaration. Along
> > with that, do we want to keep defining
> > __KVM_HAVE_ARCH_FLUSH_REMOTE_TLBS in the arch code that supports it or
> > convert it into a CONFIG_?
> 
> This isn't something that a user can select, more something that is an
> architectural decision. Maybe in a later patch if there is a consensus
> around that, but probably not as part of this series.

+1.  I agree it's annoying that KVM uses a mix of Kconfigs and manual #defines
for the various "KVM_HAVE" knobs, but we have so many of both that one-off
conversions without a real need don't make much sense.