From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.zytor.com (terminus.zytor.com [198.137.202.136]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 78BFC216449; Tue, 12 Nov 2024 18:10:56 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.137.202.136 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1731435058; cv=none; b=YG1P+5znpwLasTaymlIUL21/e2uIS2B+UMnYfEJdg3NxnxPPc/7BLR6BiEQpREj+qNc4XVvmg1dlA1FeUMSMoFk0ZbsFVc4wSfzo993HOkq376jKNKrqNZaN2jCq+OneVEFVKO1Vx8iVQIFIpvlj5y02FvlJqBuLFwQCgQT+sUc= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1731435058; c=relaxed/simple; bh=LEQ3H94W9G+4p1zBDNvVrlmIym5MwkCk8vk1Mz9frXw=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=fP+uuqBUYNvHGBSDFZU5EB5yJHXSjEJOTRreH1V+s04chEHojV1uhMHqTseRmiXI6AXSwHkdB+XmRZ5lMO0iO85BlEXi6JQUdETCNFEFLHNjlQgU7l+JKTXOSQcAkhwsyRbr3E4oMGjGAWCJjJLvIa34PRHGa9HOfdW7ZERHoMo= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=zytor.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=zytor.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=zytor.com header.i=@zytor.com header.b=AP13VNhF; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.137.202.136 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=zytor.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=zytor.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=zytor.com header.i=@zytor.com header.b="AP13VNhF" Received: from [172.27.3.244] ([76.133.66.138]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.zytor.com (8.18.1/8.17.1) with ESMTPSA id 4ACIAE083429129 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 12 Nov 2024 10:10:14 -0800 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mail.zytor.com 4ACIAE083429129 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=zytor.com; s=2024101701; t=1731435015; bh=6Kx7RtEhxS9ERAWk+qY7jBAYM7lxFcKMRDRKdoGvtOc=; h=Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=AP13VNhFxKlW2B9mIEBBxfwn4PhNlLH+AqHj29XlAWqwf/a37gjL1uL9DkZHwdkqZ lBvEdDhGfXoJgNofNIf7KT2Q1YPqMjto5ISr2VFVvt8+ia3eUY+VE8WS0RHe2Ej0OC P6nV81LRCQ5OJ7CSyxwIJGQM/5fyZXB9WNx3CbBRPjPgoTeb1rLovKWzt7mt1yhzHi Wa2gjYRNbTfL/Sv9nMcpmvm58+FG72Iv1DpkOyWVd5F++r5206Fuausdkkjb8NN0hL rpnNl0Yn/UICTfZFhxK9ybCUVjuHoTCElUlWVbga4QGHPzy66gKSZOBpuI4PCYYZEy LdiZ5prEbc4cQ== Message-ID: <8c70586e-2513-42d4-b2cd-476caa416c16@zytor.com> Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2024 10:10:14 -0800 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: kvm: add back X86_LOCAL_APIC dependency To: Sean Christopherson , Arnd Bergmann Cc: Paolo Bonzini , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , Borislav Petkov , Dave Hansen , x86@kernel.org, Arnd Bergmann , kernel test robot , Michael Roth , Isaku Yamahata , Vitaly Kuznetsov , kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20241112065415.3974321-1-arnd@kernel.org> Content-Language: en-US From: "H. Peter Anvin" In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 11/12/24 10:05, Sean Christopherson wrote: >> >> Fixes: ea4290d77bda ("KVM: x86: leave kvm.ko out of the build if no vendor module is requested") >> Reported-by: kernel test robot >> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202410060426.e9Xsnkvi-lkp@intel.com/ >> Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann >> --- >> Question: is there actually any point in keeping KVM support for 32-bit host >> processors? > > Nope. We need _a_ 32-bit KVM build to run as a nested (L1) hypervisor for testing > purposes, but AFAIK there's zero need to keep 32-bit KVM up-to-date. > What do you mean here? Running an old kernel with the 32-bit KVM in a VM for testing the L0 hypervisor? -hpa