Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-58163-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240131233056.10845-1-pbonzini@redhat.com> <ZcOWwYRUxZmpH304@google.com>
In-Reply-To: <ZcOWwYRUxZmpH304@google.com>
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2024 14:39:03 +0100
Message-ID: <CABgObfa1SmH0HDq5B5OQxpueej=bdivMTkVrO=cXNfOi09HhUw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] KVM: cleanup linux/kvm.h
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Feb 7, 2024 at 3:43=E2=80=AFPM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.c=
om> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 31, 2024, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > More cleanups of KVM's main header:
> >
> > * remove thoroughly obsolete APIs
> >
> > * move architecture-dependent stuff to uapi/asm/kvm.h
> >
> > * small cleanups to __KVM_HAVE_* symbols
>
> Do you have any thoughts on how/when you're going to apply this?  The kvm=
h code
> movement is likely going to generate conflicts for any new uAPI, e.g. I k=
now Paul's
> Xen series at least conflicts.

It also conflicts (and was partly motivated by) the SEV API cleanups
that I am going to post soon.

> A topic branch is probably overkill.  Maybe getting this into kvm/next so=
oner
> than later so that kvm/next can be used as a base will suffice?

I can do both, a topic branch is free. But if you think this is in the
"if it compiles, apply it", then I can take that as Acked-by and apply
it today or tomorrow.

Paolo