[PATCH v18 00/18] KVM RISC-V Support
pbonzini at redhat.com
Wed May 19 04:18:44 PDT 2021
On 19/05/21 12:47, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>> It is not a dumping ground for stuff that arch maintainers can not seem
>> to agree on, and it is not a place where you can just randomly play
>> around with user/kernel apis with no consequences.
>> So no, sorry, not going to take this code at all.
> And to be a bit more clear about this, having other subsystem
> maintainers drop their unwanted code on this subsystem,_without_ even
> asking me first is just not very nice. All of a sudden I am now > responsible for this stuff, without me even being asked about it.
> Should I start throwing random drivers into the kvm subsystem for them
> to maintain because I don't want to?:)
(I did see the smiley), I'm on board with throwing random drivers in
The situation here didn't seem very far from what process/2.Process.rst
says about staging:
- "a way to keep track of drivers that aren't up to standards", though
in this case the issue is not coding standards or quality---the code is
very good---and which people "may want to use"
- the code could be removed if there's no progress on either changing
the RISC-V acceptance policy or ratifying the spec
Of course there should have been a TODO file explaining the situation.
But if you think this is not the right place, I totally understand; if
my opinion had any weight in this, I would just place it in arch/riscv/kvm.
The RISC-V acceptance policy as is just doesn't work, and the fact that
people are trying to work around it is proving it. There are many ways
to improve it:
- get rid of it;
- provide a path to get an exception;
- provide a staging place sot hat people to do their job of contributing
code to Linux (e.g. arch/riscv/staging/kvm).
If everything else fail, I guess we can place it in
drivers/virt/riscv/kvm, even though that's just as silly a workaround.
It's a pity because the RISC-V virtualization architecture has a very
nice design, and the KVM code is also a very good example of how to do
> If there's really no other way to do this, than to put it in staging,
> let's talk about it. But saying "this must go here" is not a
More information about the linux-riscv