Re: [PATCH] vfio-pci/zdev: require KVM to be built-in

[Pierre Morel]

Randy,

I need to provide the correction patch rapidly.
Without answer I will propose the patch.

Regards,
Pierre

On 8/16/22 09:55, Pierre Morel wrote:
> On 8/16/22 08:04, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > Hi--
> >
> > On 8/15/22 02:43, Pierre Morel wrote:
> > > Thank you Randy for this good catch.
> > > However forcing KVM to be include statically in the kernel when using 
> > > VFIO_PCI extensions is not a good solution for us I think.
> > >
> > > I suggest we better do something like:
> > >
> > > ----
> > >
> > > diff --git a/arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h 
> > > b/arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > > index 6287a843e8bc..1733339cc4eb 100644
> > > --- a/arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > > +++ b/arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > > @@ -1038,7 +1038,7 @@ static inline void 
> > > kvm_arch_vcpu_unblocking(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) {}
> > >   #define __KVM_HAVE_ARCH_VM_FREE
> > >   void kvm_arch_free_vm(struct kvm *kvm);
> > >
> > > -#ifdef CONFIG_VFIO_PCI_ZDEV_KVM
> > > +#if defined(CONFIG_VFIO_PCI_ZDEV_KVM) || 
> > > defined(CONFIG_VFIO_PCI_ZDEV_KVM_MODULE)
> >
> > This all looks good except for the line above.
> > It should be:
> >
> > #if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_VFIO_PCI_ZDEV_KVM)
> >
> > Thanks.
>
> Yes, better, thanks.
> How do we do? Should I repost it with reported-by you or do you want to 
> post it?
>
> Pierre
>
>
> > >   int kvm_s390_pci_register_kvm(struct zpci_dev *zdev, struct kvm *kvm);
> > >   void kvm_s390_pci_unregister_kvm(struct zpci_dev *zdev);
> > >   #else
> > > diff --git a/drivers/vfio/pci/Kconfig b/drivers/vfio/pci/Kconfig
> > > index f9d0c908e738..bbc375b028ef 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/vfio/pci/Kconfig
> > > +++ b/drivers/vfio/pci/Kconfig
> > > @@ -45,9 +45,9 @@ config VFIO_PCI_IGD
> > >   endif
> > >
> > >   config VFIO_PCI_ZDEV_KVM
> > > -       bool "VFIO PCI extensions for s390x KVM passthrough"
> > > +       def_tristate y
> > > +       prompt "VFIO PCI extensions for s390x KVM passthrough"
> > >          depends on S390 && KVM
> > > -       default y
> > >          help
> > >            Support s390x-specific extensions to enable support for 
> > > enhancements
> > >            to KVM passthrough capabilities, such as interpretive 
> > > execution of
> > >
> > > ----
> > >
> > > What do you think? It seems to me it solves the problem, what do you 
> > > think?
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Pierre

--
Pierre Morel
IBM Lab Boeblingen