From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1762224AbdAIPF2 (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Jan 2017 10:05:28 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:46022 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751008AbdAIPFM (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Jan 2017 10:05:12 -0500 Subject: Re: [RFC 00/55] Nested Virtualization on KVM/ARM To: Jintack Lim , christoffer.dall@linaro.org, marc.zyngier@arm.com, pbonzini@redhat.com, rkrcmar@redhat.com, linux@armlinux.org.uk, catalin.marinas@arm.com, will.deacon@arm.com, vladimir.murzin@arm.com, suzuki.poulose@arm.com, mark.rutland@arm.com, james.morse@arm.com, lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com, kevin.brodsky@arm.com, wcohen@redhat.com, shankerd@codeaurora.org, geoff@infradead.org, andre.przywara@arm.com, eric.auger@redhat.com, anna-maria@linutronix.de, shihwei@cs.columbia.edu, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <1483943091-1364-1-git-send-email-jintack@cs.columbia.edu> From: David Hildenbrand Organization: Red Hat GmbH Message-ID: <7991b5fa-cbd3-a3b3-3f1c-8b8655ebdcfd@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2017 16:05:01 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1483943091-1364-1-git-send-email-jintack@cs.columbia.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.32]); Mon, 09 Jan 2017 15:05:13 +0000 (UTC) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > Even though this work is not complete (see limitations below), I'd appreciate > early feedback on this RFC. Specifically, I'm interested in: > - Is it better to have a kernel config or to make it configurable at runtime? x86 and s390x have a kernel module parameter (nested) that can only be changed when loading the module and should default to false. So the admin explicitly has to enable it. Maybe going the same path makes sense. -- David From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: david@redhat.com (David Hildenbrand) Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2017 16:05:01 +0100 Subject: [RFC 00/55] Nested Virtualization on KVM/ARM In-Reply-To: <1483943091-1364-1-git-send-email-jintack@cs.columbia.edu> References: <1483943091-1364-1-git-send-email-jintack@cs.columbia.edu> Message-ID: <7991b5fa-cbd3-a3b3-3f1c-8b8655ebdcfd@redhat.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org > Even though this work is not complete (see limitations below), I'd appreciate > early feedback on this RFC. Specifically, I'm interested in: > - Is it better to have a kernel config or to make it configurable at runtime? x86 and s390x have a kernel module parameter (nested) that can only be changed when loading the module and should default to false. So the admin explicitly has to enable it. Maybe going the same path makes sense. -- David