On Fri, 2025-04-25 at 16:48 -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > (2) is an existing problem. But if we think KVM should have its own > > feature set of bits for ABI purposes, it seems like maybe it should have > > some > > dedicated consideration. > > Nah, don't bother. The kernel needs to solve the exact same problems for the > signal ABI, I don't see any reason to generate more work. From a validation > coverage perspective, I see a lot of value in shared code. Right, so there should be no need to keep a separate features and buffer size for KVM's xsave UABI, as this patch does. Let's just leave it using the core kernels UABI version.
