From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-pl1-f198.google.com (mail-pl1-f198.google.com [209.85.214.198]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F1FEF4EC663 for ; Thu, 3 Sep 2026 16:33:36 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.214.198 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1788453218; cv=none; b=hBhaHLnsMEiKI1bzJJSotaKQ7ERqpYxcAU9qziFY6uDP4+a2z+41/20SjkDsEOBFp7u/D81NfJvBfrXwy91RHBXbIii0Jjy+fR7Hc8tKAdeCyzWrEaNjsnoZsiIZNM/xTA2zG0ll0TGAfnJBsTZnlRG2zpWkUmp4ufHZvw7aWp0= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1788453218; c=relaxed/simple; bh=J9DTYWyQiUh6lX22wglRoT5QWIUixAxZgYaHJuhSa4k=; h=Date:In-Reply-To:Mime-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:From: To:Cc:Content-Type; b=EFPQWuqXfwx5LpYHmdE9Ebbl5JgePaWV2AJv+8lcus+l0iDTcsQyevR+o+FRpcU4mYjobSNuVdLyN5su6o/uMPCIxflh3iNc7xbFsNXltXwRO3+fMXYrsI+R+MDwr/Wu2rrdO9znI+x8hFED65pQfhP8vd3gWW5VTluYixtqJII= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=google.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=flex--seanjc.bounces.google.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b=tfkDCCKV; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.214.198 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=google.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=flex--seanjc.bounces.google.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b="tfkDCCKV" Received: by mail-pl1-f198.google.com with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-2ce8a76df2dso54855ad.2 for ; Thu, 03 Sep 2026 09:33:36 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20251104; t=1788453216; x=1789058016; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=content-type:cc:to:from:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :in-reply-to:date:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to :content-type; bh=yud1zWjg0T0unucnpCnDX+16TCQDlpqp9KH31E+tKFs=; b=tfkDCCKVclbpyW+qt0I0wNtovxpVolfyEf2Dpx+iMpUDnK5ur8CbzWEtxvv24omyLG N/icn/ilGhiOwHUsbgSZnlpiCc3cMDQNy+r2KJoDyE2uTx1HiK8Y0A4fum2AC/SlaELy qkhO87ECAfzx4IwYNdZTJDq7ZPgQRxVTAC5ukJ57AKkYZoXThWwAxX7hjePlq79PFseC VQ/hkaXHMFe4U2kSFoRPD20VAG3/a4QVeZfiTcMRICE60OvuXdpg6qrCoUORGy61xnhq lSy1GpmRS+Vi776JdCLpa6J798nh0+3uxC4coaZmsgUpsrF/BeW9BL5kcmmVQDmFSjtD Lf0Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20251104; t=1788453216; x=1789058016; h=content-type:cc:to:from:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :in-reply-to:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to:content-type; bh=yud1zWjg0T0unucnpCnDX+16TCQDlpqp9KH31E+tKFs=; b=TQ34Kfd/zRjQy/zLaGywwjcP6wzJRckATVW0AIoavaO61aVFJuc6KpPUGQcsg4++mj k4cRWb35REug25K2TMXTJiKUg+dymdQKJTwoYXrBmUaF8RtgkNg9cE6kM0wDqDvH8cKu fQwqjhv28uyNuLj4MbrCdJQBmxodY+FDdA15QLTVkJxJkizUEvJb5e4Qgpzt7RPqGt3O biYbU0tSwPapaudARDmyBW72+s7AlnIZADzblfYSCYsU2RyVvVs1MYxsRn/4Vf9QgMVp XZBm3pX3YQX35BeTFsQGR1CMrMdhpX5KlqYLzGwGrPQYhXUn5cngwXT62sL1TT+EOwLe VF+Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AFuF++l+WgN9OrSTFNX2L6JEt++bJvOmlR8/TZL4P4f8sAt9H3Yu/zAN q4Cd+0hyirDPerQsim+R8p8IYGTdhMDx0aPdaYby0+GFvF7RzF0XHgKFAlQFZ+5xwXgAGCzA+RP HX/l/sA== X-Received: from plcl4.prod.google.com ([2002:a17:902:e2c4:b0:2ca:ceab:34a3]) (user=seanjc job=prod-delivery.src-stubby-dispatcher) by 2002:a17:903:9cf:b0:2d8:d4d1:313a with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-2db12634535mr3213635ad.17.1788453215940; Thu, 03 Sep 2026 09:33:35 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2026 09:33:35 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20260903154317.246414-A-seiden@linux.ibm.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: kvm@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Mime-Version: 1.0 References: <20260831144802.834315-1-seiden@linux.ibm.com> <20260831144802.834315-24-seiden@linux.ibm.com> <20260903083857.33034-B-seiden@linux.ibm.com> <20260903154317.246414-A-seiden@linux.ibm.com> Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 23/23] KVM: s390: arm64: Add KVM_S390_ARM64 Kconfig and Makefile From: Sean Christopherson To: Steffen Eiden Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, kvmarm@lists.linux.dev, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, Alexander Gordeev , Andreas Grapentin , Arnd Bergmann , Catalin Marinas , Christian Borntraeger , Claudio Imbrenda , David Hildenbrand , Friedrich Welter , Fuad Tabba , Gautam Gala , Hariharan Mari , Heiko Carstens , Hendrik Brueckner , Ilya Leoshkevich , Janosch Frank , Joey Gouly , Marc Zyngier , Nico Boehr , Nina Schoetterl-Glausch , Oliver Upton , Paolo Bonzini , Suzuki K Poulose , Sven Schnelle , Ulrich Weigand , Vasily Gorbik , Will Deacon , Zenghui Yu Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" On Thu, Sep 03, 2026, Steffen Eiden wrote: > On Thu, Sep 03, 2026 at 07:43:58AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > And FWIW, while it might seem daunting, from my perspective it's not actually that > > much churn to do things "right". Provide KVM_S390_NATIVE, and then have KVM reflect > > the "weakest" of S390_NATIVE vs. S390_ARCH. I.e. make KVM=m if either of the "real" > > KVMs will be a module. That requires some creative shenanigans, but it's not hard, > > just weird. > > FYI the first versions of this series had a 3 configs approach very > similar to yours. > > IIRC it was not so much the churn we have in (upstream) kernel code but > more on the distro side and to everyone building the kernel in their > favourite architecture (s390 :)) How many people are running distro kernels on s390 hardware? And how many distros actually change the default KVM settings, e.g. to build KVM as a module instead of baking it into the kernel? My guess is "not many" and "almost none", i.e. the actual impact on downstream users is likely miniscule. > Suddenly the KVM config changed its behaviour (effectively becoming a noop) Not really, because "KVM" itself is inaccessible (well, unless someone is hand- editing .configs or generating them by script, but that's their own fault). E.g. upgrading to a new kernel will explicitly prompt the user to choose for both KVM_S390_NATIVE and KVM_S390_ARM64 (or whatever they get called). > I am starting to think that having no separate config option for arm on > s390 might be the easisest way. Just KVM and guard both modules behind > it. It reduces the config space bloat and I do not see a reason why somoeone > should only compile one KVM module but not the other. kvm-arm64 won't > load if you do not have the hardware anyways. Because there may be an unforseen need down the road? Smushing things together after the fact is generally easy, pulling things apart without breaking everything is usually much, much harder. > But I am not opposed to the x86 approach. Just thinking loud. > > Anyways, I am off for vacation expect a reduced reply frequency from my > side :) Enjoy your holiday!