mbox series

[0/8] KVM: cleanup linux/kvm.h

Message ID 20240131233056.10845-1-pbonzini@redhat.com (mailing list archive)
Headers show
Series KVM: cleanup linux/kvm.h | expand

Message

Paolo Bonzini Jan. 31, 2024, 11:30 p.m. UTC 
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

Paolo

Paolo Bonzini (8):
  KVM: remove more traces of device assignment UAPI
  KVM: x86: move x86-specific structs to uapi/asm/kvm.h
  KVM: powerpc: move powerpc-specific structs to uapi/asm/kvm.h
  KVM: s390: move s390-specific structs to uapi/asm/kvm.h
  KVM: arm64: move ARM-specific defines to uapi/asm/kvm.h
  kvm: replace __KVM_HAVE_READONLY_MEM with Kconfig symbol
  KVM: define __KVM_HAVE_GUEST_DEBUG unconditionally
  KVM: remove unnecessary #ifdef

 arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h     |   7 +-
 arch/arm64/kvm/Kconfig                |   1 +
 arch/loongarch/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h |   2 -
 arch/loongarch/kvm/Kconfig            |   1 +
 arch/mips/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h      |   2 -
 arch/mips/kvm/Kconfig                 |   1 +
 arch/powerpc/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h   |  45 +-
 arch/riscv/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h     |   1 -
 arch/riscv/kvm/Kconfig                |   1 +
 arch/s390/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h      | 315 +++++++++++-
 arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h       | 264 +++++++++-
 arch/x86/kvm/Kconfig                  |   1 +
 include/uapi/linux/kvm.h              | 692 +-------------------------
 virt/kvm/Kconfig                      |   3 +
 virt/kvm/kvm_main.c                   |   2 +-
 15 files changed, 642 insertions(+), 696 deletions(-)

Comments

Sean Christopherson Feb. 7, 2024, 2:42 p.m. UTC | #1 
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 know Paul's
Xen series at least conflicts.

A topic branch is probably overkill.  Maybe getting this into kvm/next sooner
than later so that kvm/next can be used as a base will suffice?
Paolo Bonzini Feb. 8, 2024, 1:39 p.m. UTC | #2 
On Wed, Feb 7, 2024 at 3:43 PM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com> 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 know 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 sooner
> 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
Sean Christopherson Feb. 8, 2024, 5:10 p.m. UTC | #3 
On Thu, Feb 08, 2024, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 7, 2024 at 3:43 PM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com> 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 know 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 sooner
> > 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.

Looks like you already created and merged a topic branch, but for giggles:

Acked-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Paolo Bonzini Feb. 8, 2024, 5:32 p.m. UTC | #4 
On Thu, Feb 8, 2024 at 6:10 PM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Looks like you already created and merged a topic branch, but for giggles:

Only to kvm/queue to show myself how it would look like...

> Acked-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>

Thanks!

Paolo