[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20180118072732.095bfddb@mschwideX1>
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 07:27:32 +0100
From: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>
To: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>
Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Jon Masters <jcm@...hat.com>,
Marcus Meissner <meissner@...e.de>,
Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] KVM: s390: wire up bpb feature
On Wed, 17 Jan 2018 22:43:24 +0100
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com> wrote:
> Conny can you review and ack as well?
>
> Paolo, Radim,
>
> As the other patches need to sync on the ifetch/nospec/gmb naming I have changed my mind. :-)
> This patch is independent from the other patches (as it just provides the guest facilities not caring
> about what the host does).
>
> It seems that you do a kvm pull request for 4.15 anyway (for power), so it might make sense to
> apply this patch as well for 4.15. this will make it easier to also upstream the QEMU part in time
> as we need the uabi interfaces.
Indeed, there is no real dependency. I am thinking about doing a split of my patches as well,
everything but the gmb/nospec_xxx/ifetch/isync/whatever part. The prctl part needs some more
discussion, as will prepare a patch. Or two.
--
blue skies,
Martin.
"Reality continues to ruin my life." - Calvin.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists