Re: [PATCH v1 1/5] KVM: x86: Expose Zhaoxin SM2 CPUID feature

[Sean Christopherson]

On Thu, May 28, 2026, Ewan Hai wrote:
> Quick question before sending v2:
> 
> With the definitions moving to cpufeatures.h, there are two reasonable
> ways to organize the series. Which would you prefer?
> 
> Option A (6 patches, split by subsystem):
> 
> [PATCH v2 1/6] x86/cpufeatures: Add Zhaoxin SM2 feature
> [PATCH v2 2/6] x86/cpufeatures: Add Zhaoxin CCS (SM3 + SM4) feature
> [PATCH v2 3/6] x86/cpufeatures: Add Zhaoxin RNG2 feature
> [PATCH v2 4/6] x86/cpufeatures: Add Zhaoxin PHE2 feature
> [PATCH v2 5/6] x86/cpufeatures: Add Zhaoxin RSA feature
> [PATCH v2 6/6] KVM: x86: Advertise new Zhaoxin CPUID 0xC0000001 EDX bits
> 
> Option B (5 patches, each group end-to-end):
> 
> [PATCH v2 1/5] KVM: x86: Expose Zhaoxin SM2 CPUID feature
> [PATCH v2 2/5] KVM: x86: Expose Zhaoxin CCS (SM3 + SM4) CPUID feature
> [PATCH v2 3/5] KVM: x86: Expose Zhaoxin RNG2 CPUID feature
> [PATCH v2 4/5] KVM: x86: Expose Zhaoxin PHE2 CPUID feature
> [PATCH v2 5/5] KVM: x86: Expose Zhaoxin RSA CPUID feature
> (each patch adds both the cpufeatures.h entry and the KVM F() use)

Option B.  Thanks!

> Either way the total diff is the same; just want to do it in the form
> that's easiest to review. Any preference?