[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y8riZEg+4rZ/65+T@zn.tnic>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2023 19:50:12 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Dionna Amalie Glaze <dionnaglaze@...gle.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
Tom Lendacky <Thomas.Lendacky@....com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>,
Peter Gonda <pgonda@...gle.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Venu Busireddy <venu.busireddy@...cle.com>,
Michael Roth <michael.roth@....com>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
Michael Sterritt <sterritt@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 2/7] x86/sev: Change snp_guest_issue_request's fw_err
On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 10:03:33AM -0800, Dionna Amalie Glaze wrote:
> I was operating under the assumption that kvm: sev: patches should
> only touch kvm, and virt: coco: sev-guest should only touch sev-guest.
No, we pretty-much never do that. If a patch touches multiple subsystems, the
relevant maintainers agree on its path upstream.
> If you're okay with a patch that changes both areas at the same time,
> then I could do that.
Yes pls.
Thx.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
Powered by blists - more mailing lists