linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/8] KVM: cleanup linux/kvm.h

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]

Message-ID: <ZcULFqXM_sA3dSY7@google.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2024 09:10:46 -0800
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] KVM: cleanup linux/kvm.h

On Thu, Feb 08, 2024, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 7, 2024 at 3:43 PM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...glecom> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 31, 2024, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > > More cleanups of KVM's main header:
> > >
> > > * remove thoroughly obsolete APIs
> > >
> > > * move architecture-dependent stuff to uapi/asm/kvm.h
> > >
> > > * small cleanups to __KVM_HAVE_* symbols
> >
> > Do you have any thoughts on how/when you're going to apply this?  The kvm.h code
> > movement is likely going to generate conflicts for any new uAPI, e.g. I know Paul's
> > Xen series at least conflicts.
> 
> It also conflicts (and was partly motivated by) the SEV API cleanups
> that I am going to post soon.
> 
> > A topic branch is probably overkill.  Maybe getting this into kvm/next sooner
> > than later so that kvm/next can be used as a base will suffice?
> 
> I can do both, a topic branch is free. But if you think this is in the
> "if it compiles, apply it", then I can take that as Acked-by and apply
> it today or tomorrow.

Looks like you already created and merged a topic branch, but for giggles:

Acked-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>