On Wed, Aug 02, 2023, Marc Zyngier wrote: > On Tue, 01 Aug 2023 01:42:54 +0100, > Raghavendra Rao Ananta <rananta@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Thanks for the suggestions; I can go with a common declaration. Along > > with that, do we want to keep defining > > __KVM_HAVE_ARCH_FLUSH_REMOTE_TLBS in the arch code that supports it or > > convert it into a CONFIG_? > > This isn't something that a user can select, more something that is an > architectural decision. Maybe in a later patch if there is a consensus > around that, but probably not as part of this series. +1. I agree it's annoying that KVM uses a mix of Kconfigs and manual #defines for the various "KVM_HAVE" knobs, but we have so many of both that one-off conversions without a real need don't make much sense.
