On 28.10.19 15:54, Cornelia Huck wrote: > I think there's not enough information in here to allow someone > configuring the kernel to decide what this is and if it would be useful > to them. This should probably be at least point to some document giving > some more details. Also, can you add a sentence where this feature is > actually expected to be available? > >> + >> + If unsure, say Y. > > Is 'Y' really the safe choice here? AFAICS, this is introducing new > code and not only trying to call new interfaces, if available. Is there > any drawback to enabling this on a kernel that won't run on a platform > supporting this feature? Is this supposed to be a common setup? I would expect that this is enabled on distributions in the future. So I think we should actually get rid of this Kconfig and always enable that code. We just must pay attention to fence of all the new code if the user does not opt in. (e.g. prot_virt=0). We need to do that anyway and not hanving a Kconfig forces us to be extra careful.
