Re: [PATCH 03/19] Revert "KVM: SVM: Introduce hybrid-AVIC mode"

[Sean Christopherson]

On Thu, Sep 01, 2022, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> There was actually a patch series that was fixing it, but you said, just like me,
> that it is not worth it, better to have an errata in KVM, since guest should not use
> this info anyway. I didn't object to it, and neither I do now, but as you see,
> you also sometimes agree that going 100% to the spec is not worth it.
> 
> 
> I hope you understand me.

Yep.

And rereading what I wrote...  I didn't intend to imply that you personally aren't
operating in "good faith" or whatever is the right terminology.  What I was trying
to explain is why I sometimes speak in absolutes.  When there is a bug/regression
and KVM is clearly violating spec, it's not a matter of opinion; KVM is broken and
needs to be fixed.

Of course, one could argue that that's an opinion in and of itself...