linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 3/7] KVM: PPC: Remove redundant kvm_run from vcpu

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 26 May 2020 14:36:56 +1000
From:   Paul Mackerras <paulus@...abs.org>
To:     Tianjia Zhang <tianjia.zhang@...ux.alibaba.com>
Cc:     pbonzini@...hat.com, tsbogend@...ha.franken.de, mpe@...erman.id.au,
        benh@...nel.crashing.org, borntraeger@...ibm.com,
        frankja@...ux.ibm.com, david@...hat.com, cohuck@...hat.com,
        heiko.carstens@...ibm.com, gor@...ux.ibm.com,
        sean.j.christopherson@...el.com, vkuznets@...hat.com,
        wanpengli@...cent.com, jmattson@...gle.com, joro@...tes.org,
        tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de, x86@...nel.org,
        hpa@...or.com, maz@...nel.org, james.morse@....com,
        julien.thierry.kdev@...il.com, suzuki.poulose@....com,
        christoffer.dall@....com, peterx@...hat.com, thuth@...hat.com,
        chenhuacai@...il.com, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu,
        linux-mips@...r.kernel.org, kvm-ppc@...r.kernel.org,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/7] KVM: PPC: Remove redundant kvm_run from vcpu_arch

On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 12:35:10PM +0800, Tianjia Zhang wrote:
> The 'kvm_run' field already exists in the 'vcpu' structure, which
> is the same structure as the 'kvm_run' in the 'vcpu_arch' and
> should be deleted.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Tianjia Zhang <tianjia.zhang@...ux.alibaba.com>

This looks fine.

I assume each architecture sub-maintainer is taking the relevant
patches from this series via their tree - is that right?

Reviewed-by: Paul Mackerras <paulus@...abs.org>