From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2023 09:10:46 -0700
Subject: [PATCH v7 01/12] KVM: Rename kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlb() to kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs()
In-Reply-To: <878ratqw2l.wl-maz@kernel.org>
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>
List-Id: <kvm-riscv.lists.infradead.org>
To: kvm-riscv@lists.infradead.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

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.