Re: [RFC PATCH 1/4] KVM: selftests: Add support for creating non-default type VMs

From: Erdem Aktas <erdemaktas@google.com>
To: Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@redhat.com>
Cc: Xiaoyao Li <xiaoyao.li@intel.com>,
	linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,
	Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
	Peter Gonda <pgonda@google.com>, Marc Orr <marcorr@google.com>,
	Sagi Shahar <sagis@google.com>,
	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
	Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>, Andrew Jones <drjones@redhat.com>,
	Ben Gardon <bgardon@google.com>, Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>,
	David Matlack <dmatlack@google.com>,
	Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito <eesposit@redhat.com>,
	Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>,
	Ricardo Koller <ricarkol@google.com>,
	Eric Auger <eric.auger@redhat.com>,
	Yanan Wang <wangyanan55@huawei.com>,
	Aaron Lewis <aaronlewis@google.com>,
	Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>,
	Oliver Upton <oupton@google.com>,
	Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
	Peter Shier <pshier@google.com>,
	Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@google.com>,
	Zhenzhong Duan <zhenzhong.duan@intel.com>,
	"Maciej S. Szmigiero" <maciej.szmigiero@oracle.com>,
	Like Xu <like.xu@linux.intel.com>,
	open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"open list:KERNEL VIRTUAL MACHINE (KVM)" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/4] KVM: selftests: Add support for creating non-default type VMs
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2021 13:29:54 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAAYXXYx_CFKBhFjqfz_wyh6bPPbWpTPCDfGmmLGqiugvfqA3Dg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <c82a3abe00d387985ac806c8ff062cc29e192bbd.camel@redhat.com>

Thank you all for all that great feedback! I will include them in my v2.

On Wed, Aug 4, 2021 at 7:46 AM Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Can we pass KVM_X86_LEGACY_VM (whatever name when it's upstreamed)
> > > > instead of 0?
> > >
I was originally thinking of doing this but Sean has suggested that we
should use 0 to make it  arch-agnostic for creating default VMs.
+Sean Christopherson : What do you think?

>
> KVM_X86_NORMAL_VM is a very good name IMHO as well.
> Thanks!

Sounds good to me.

> For example:
>
> struct vm_options {
>         enum vm_guest_mode mode;
>         uint64_t phy_pages;
>         int perm;
>         int type;
> };
>
> struct kvm_vm *vm_create(const struct vm_options *options)
> {
>         ...
> }
>

I liked this idea, I will see if I can include it in my v2.

Thank you so much again.
-Erdem