Re: [PATCH v1 3/3] kernel/configs: don't include PCI_QUIRKS in KVM guest configs

[Marc Zyngier]

On 2020-08-04 16:40, Alex Bennée wrote:
> Marc Zyngier <maz@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > On 2020-08-04 15:44, Alex Bennée wrote:
> > > Marc Zyngier <maz@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > >
> > > > On 2020-08-04 13:44, Alex Bennée wrote:
> > > > > The VIRTIO_PCI support is an idealised PCI bus, we don't need a 
> > > > > bunch
> > > > > of bloat for real world hardware for a VirtIO guest.
> > > >
> > > > Who says this guest will only have virtio devices?
> > >
> > > This is true - although what is the point of kvm_guest.config? We
> > > certainly turn on a whole bunch of virt optimised pathways with
> > > PARAVIRT
> > > and HYPERVISOR_GUEST along with the rest of VirtIO.
> >
> > Most of which actually qualifies as bloat itself as far as KVM/arm64
> > is concerned...
>
> So here is the question - does the kernel care about having a blessed
> config for a minimal viable guest? They are certainly used in the cloud
> but I understand the kernel is trying to get away from having a zoo of
> configs. What is the actual point of kvm_guest.config? Just an easy
> enabling for developers?

The cloud vendor I know certainly doesn't provide a "dumbed down"
kernel configuration. What they run is either a distro kernel
or something that fits their environment (which does include
HW PCI devices, and hardly any virtio device).

My take is that this kvm-special config isn't that useful in
the real world, and I don't believe there is such thing as a
"minimal viable guest" config, certainly not across architectures
and VMMs. Hopefully it fits someone's development workflow, but
that's probably it.

         M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...