From: Roman Kisel <romank@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2025 2:21 PM > > On 3/12/2025 1:25 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 12, 2025, at 19:33, Roman Kisel wrote: > >> > >> That's a minimal extension, its surprise factor is very low. It has not > >> been seen to cause issues. If no one has strong opinions against that, > >> I'd send that in V6. > >> > > > > Works for me. Thanks for your detailed explanations. > > > > Thank you for your review very much! > My original concern [1] with this minimal change is that it allows building a normal Linux kernel (i.e., not for VTL 2) for Hyper-V with CONFIG_ACPI=n. Such a kernel will not run in a Hyper-V VM since ACPI is required unless building for and running in VTL 2. Current upstream code disallows CONFIG_HYPERV=y with CONFIG_ACPI=n. However, I don't want to make too big of a deal about now allowing this misconfiguration. Arguably it's not likely to happen, and the solution is "don't do that". So if we want to go back to the minimal set of changes to drivers/hv/Kconfig as Roman proposes, I won't object further. I just want to sure everyone is clear on the tradeoffs. Michael [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-hyperv/SN6PR02MB4157E15EFE263BBA3D8DFC51D4EC2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
