linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 01/12] KVM: Rename kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlb() to kvm_arch_flush_remote

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <ZMqABp6OdrgOtsum@google.com>
Date:   Wed, 2 Aug 2023 09:10:46 -0700
From:   Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To:     Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
Cc:     Raghavendra Rao Ananta <rananta@...gle.com>,
        Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@...ux.dev>,
        James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
        Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...nel.org>,
        Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@...wei.com>,
        Anup Patel <anup@...infault.org>,
        Atish Patra <atishp@...shpatra.org>,
        Jing Zhang <jingzhangos@...gle.com>,
        Reiji Watanabe <reijiw@...gle.com>,
        Colton Lewis <coltonlewis@...gle.com>,
        David Matlack <dmatlack@...gle.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, kvmarm@...ts.linux.dev,
        linux-mips@...r.kernel.org, kvm-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org, Gavin Shan <gshan@...hat.com>,
        "Philippe Mathieu-Daudé" <philmd@...aro.org>,
        Shaoqin Huang <shahuang@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 01/12] KVM: Rename kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlb() to kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs()

On Wed, Aug 02, 2023, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Aug 2023 01:42:54 +0100,
> Raghavendra Rao Ananta <rananta@...gle.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.