Re: "Paravisor" Feature Enumeration

[dan.j.williams]

Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 1/5/26 16:01, dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > Dave Hansen wrote:
> ...
> >> 	X86_FEATURE_KVM_CLOCKSOURCE in arm,pvclock
> >> or
> >> 	X86_FEATURE_KVM_STEAL_TIME  in arm,kvm-steal-time
> >>
> >> As far as I can tell, these aliases are all done ad-hoc. This approach
> >> could obviously be extended to paravisor features, but it would probably
> >> be on the slow side to do it for each new feature.
> > 
> > "Slow" as in standardization time?
> 
> Yes.

That speed problem is mitigated by the EFI/ACPI Code First process.
Linux and any other impacted implementation that want to be party to a
new mechanism just come to a public agreement on the mailing lists per
usual and ACPI Working Group acks/naks that public proposal. That
effectively gets you in the same ballpark of time as landing a new
invented Linux enumeration upstream.

There is a lag between the ack and the spec release, but the intention
is the ack means it is safe to assume a future version of the
specification will adopt the change.