Sean Christopherson <[email protected]> writes:

> On Tue, Aug 11, 2026, [email protected] wrote:
>> Sean Christopherson <[email protected]> writes:
>> 
>> > On Tue, Jul 28, 2026, Tarun Sahu wrote:
>> >> Introduce the LIVEUPDATE_GUEST_MEMFD Kconfig option. This option
>> >> enables live update support for KVM guest_memfd files, enabling
>> >> guest_memfd-backed memory preservation across kernel upgrades.
>> >> 
>> >> Currently this support only guest_memfd files that are full-shared
>> >> (INIT_SHARED and no support for private_mem).
>> >
>> > Why?  Specifically, why do we need/want a separate Kconfig for guest_memfd
>> > liveupdate versus KVM liveupdate?  I can _maybe_ see a KVM-wide Kconfig, 
>> > but
>> > even that seems like a stretch given that (AFAIK) hypervisors are the one 
>> > and
>> > only use-case for liveupdate.
>> 
>> LIVEUPDATE is used in many subsystem. It is possible to enable
>> liveupdate and kvm without enabling KVM_GUEST_MEMFD. So GUEST_MEMFD
>> preservation must depend on CONFIG_LIVEUPDATE and KVM_GUEST_MEMFD both.
>> LIVEUPDATE_GUEST_MEMFD Kconfig is wrapper on both of them. It need not
>> to be visible in menu, So I can make it hidden. WDYT?
>> 
>> Also, KVM VM_FILE preservation and GUEST_MEMFD preservation both depends
>> on LIVEUPDATE_GUEST_MEMFD in this patch series. [PATCH 05/11]*
>> Which is wrong. So I will update KVM VM_FILE preservation to depend only
>> on CONFIG_LIVEUPDATE.
>
> Or just handle it all in the makefile?  E.g.
>
> diff --git virt/kvm/Makefile.kvm virt/kvm/Makefile.kvm
> index d047d4cf58c9..e6f098498795 100644
> --- virt/kvm/Makefile.kvm
> +++ virt/kvm/Makefile.kvm
> @@ -13,3 +13,8 @@ kvm-$(CONFIG_HAVE_KVM_IRQ_ROUTING) += $(KVM)/irqchip.o
>  kvm-$(CONFIG_HAVE_KVM_DIRTY_RING) += $(KVM)/dirty_ring.o
>  kvm-$(CONFIG_HAVE_KVM_PFNCACHE) += $(KVM)/pfncache.o
>  kvm-$(CONFIG_KVM_GUEST_MEMFD) += $(KVM)/guest_memfd.o
> +
> +ifdef CONFIG_LIVEUPDATE
> +kvm-y += $(KVM)/kvm_luo.o
> +kvm-$(CONFIG_KVM_GUEST_MEMFD) += $(KVM)/guest_memfd_luo.o
> +endif

Sounds Good to me. Will take care of it. Thanks.


Reply via email to