On 1/16/23 02:56, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: >> And we add this protocol to address very temporary problem: once >> unaccepted memory support get upstream it is just a dead weight. > Maybe, maybe not. unaccepted memory support has a Kconfig switch after > all. If we figure in 3-5 years that all distros have enabled it anyway > we can drop it again. For the transition period it will surely be > useful. I agree with Kirill here. Having unaccepted memory *AND* this firmware-driven feature really is just implementing the same thing twice. I'd much rather have the Kconfig option forced on for all guests that *might* need unaccepted memory support than carry redundant implementations. Also, _if_ we allow folks to turn the Kconfig off and get access to all their memory, they might get used to that. Removing this firmware interface from the kernel in a few years could be viewed as a regression. Then, we'll be stuck with this forever. In any case, the firmware side of things didn't seem like _that_ much code. So, I'm not protesting *that* strongly. But, I also don't believe for a second that this is going to be removed in 3-5 years.
