From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: mark.rutland@arm.com (Mark Rutland)
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2018 11:10:46 +0100
Subject: [PATCH 2/2] KVM: arm64: Prevent KVM_COMPAT from being selected
In-Reply-To: <20180619094251.8586-3-marc.zyngier@arm.com>
References: <20180619094251.8586-1-marc.zyngier@arm.com>
 <20180619094251.8586-3-marc.zyngier@arm.com>
Message-ID: <20180619101046.nkn5ixdyfc73yxpi@lakrids.cambridge.arm.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 10:42:51AM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> There is very little point in trying to support the 32bit KVM/arm API
> on arm64, and this was never an anticipated use case.
> 
> Let's make it clear by not selecting KVM_COMPAT.

Do any other architectures have KVM && COMPAT, and expose an
incompatible ABI to COMPAT tasks?

> Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>

Given the state of arm/arm64, this makes sense to me. FWIW:

Acked-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>

> ---
>  virt/kvm/Kconfig | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/virt/kvm/Kconfig b/virt/kvm/Kconfig
> index 72143cfaf6ec..ea434ddc8499 100644
> --- a/virt/kvm/Kconfig
> +++ b/virt/kvm/Kconfig
> @@ -47,7 +47,7 @@ config KVM_GENERIC_DIRTYLOG_READ_PROTECT
>  
>  config KVM_COMPAT
>         def_bool y
> -       depends on KVM && COMPAT && !S390
> +       depends on KVM && COMPAT && !(S390 || ARM64)
>  
>  config HAVE_KVM_IRQ_BYPASS
>         bool
> -- 
> 2.17.1
>