On 16.05.2024 02:44, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > On Wed, 15 May 2024, Sergiy Kibrik wrote: >> If VMX/SVM disabled in the build, we may still want to have vPMU drivers for >> PV guests. Yet some calls to vmx/svm-related routines needs to be guarded >> then. >> >> Signed-off-by: Sergiy Kibrik <[email protected]> > > Question to the x86 maintainers: are we sure we want to support the case > where VMX/SVM is disabled in the build but still we want to run PV > guests with vPMU? > > If the question is not, could we simplify this simply by making vpmu_amd > dependent on CONFIG_SVM and vpmu_intel dependent on CONFIG_VMX? > > I realize that it is possible and technically correct to disable > CONFIG_SVM (or VMX) to run on AMD hardware (or Intel) with plain PV > guests only. But do we want to support it? I wonder if we could make > things easier by avoiding to support this configuration until somebody > asks for it.
I think we want to allow for such a configuration; whether that's deemed a supported one is an orthogonal question. Much like you can set PV=n and HVM=n at the same time, yielding a largely useless hypervisor (where perhaps even the question of whether it's support may raise eyebrows). Jan
