From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sipsolutions.net (s3.sipsolutions.net [168.119.38.16]) (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 7281C2D0274 for ; Fri, 19 Sep 2025 09:43:27 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=168.119.38.16 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1758275008; cv=none; b=ZXt4NyFwHLGV4pV+U8AI8uBUXmWmMKUf4kMG3Bho6b7NPcOBf6ktVMmrwLAEb494CxCTlR0RjPLnWieNj202iMSSG1BbMGw0+odMirZUk5Ra9akrrNJ+elkCYpvp1TpG9t/Wh4wC4ZWXuGZOEn/LDk6qPolj3DsLfyOy7DCK1A4= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1758275008; c=relaxed/simple; bh=ko5AkknG3Ii2DJQfIqOZTszM7x9Fr2zaNmiIAC+x8lU=; h=Message-ID:Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References: Content-Type:MIME-Version; b=Uj5fnmMQuPNVfxfLRIKQMle5gY6GIVWCu4icckxC23yO6Ibz5cX8hDWuEnjN/PgouMrtYoGqhqZmC3ixp2iIT1JJyoi7PHNtGiuV4+q5e3qmMqcMBcL9QR7SVg5mLh3rbti8TwRaexoIPJPB8jPfJSQch+gotUN9Z9J2W7Igwqg= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=sipsolutions.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=sipsolutions.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sipsolutions.net header.i=@sipsolutions.net header.b=igQj7NKl; arc=none smtp.client-ip=168.119.38.16 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=sipsolutions.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=sipsolutions.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sipsolutions.net header.i=@sipsolutions.net header.b="igQj7NKl" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sipsolutions.net; s=mail; h=MIME-Version:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:References:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:To:From:Subject:Message-ID:Sender :Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-To: Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID; bh=ko5AkknG3Ii2DJQfIqOZTszM7x9Fr2zaNmiIAC+x8lU=; t=1758275007; x=1759484607; b=igQj7NKllHZkfbDvnfM6ABJpyyFB300ZZ22cRBtHsROYFVC C8VGlVdAeMixbKisH5eAI8hPCrL1rVFBh81BcdK8zXP47hzNZuHMcx3KYZU7GLDuj3edvECueaEI9 OXTLvc6wmfdkFRvqMFnPDfy9V4XZzpgVAV//YPkefB+1W4mbW/6NjpVI+c9TIvnlH73A+xebT4UFw gZcFEOC2gE1TbUwNFHNJagptg9pCWOc24LiPzvlyW+fEmuVzgVeiW+psXMQpfHZ3brILvE/kZA1hR lWmcthVc7ipsXBN15hIlz1GJGf9dW3ZDpDnjpMPSSWagQwmxZ8Y1X7GWW34LPu6g==; Received: by sipsolutions.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_X25519__RSA_PSS_RSAE_SHA256__AES_256_GCM:256) (Exim 4.98.2) (envelope-from ) id 1uzXeE-0000000Fe5z-2pNA; Fri, 19 Sep 2025 11:43:23 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND v11 10/13] um: nommu: a work around for MMU dependency to PCI driver From: Johannes Berg To: Hajime Tazaki Cc: linux-um@lists.infradead.org, ricarkol@google.com, Liam.Howlett@oracle.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2025 11:43:21 +0200 In-Reply-To: References: <4a9dde10c586883d20a8201ca7d76e6d7d52eaf4.1758181109.git.thehajime@gmail.com> <6b1abe384237c8129e8043ecdfdad77758d2fd2f.camel@sipsolutions.net> (sfid-20250919_113237_926194_6AC3D71B) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable User-Agent: Evolution 3.56.2 (3.56.2-2.fc42) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-malware-bazaar: not-scanned On Fri, 2025-09-19 at 11:38 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: >=20 > My gut feeling is that UML_PCI_OVER_VIRTIO should depend on PCI but I > don't know if that then doesn't end up in some kind of circular > dependency. No, that _is_ wrong, and it will end up in a circular dependency, because for UML_PCI we currently do FORCE_PCI and then we have PCI and HAVE_PCI and it all messes up ... Which is all correct right now. That still seems reasonable (why give the choice of selecting PCI after having selected VFIO/virtio PCI), but then with !MMU it can't work, so the pieces there just need to depend on MMU. johannes