linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] KVM: arm64: Move the ffa_to

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: <Z8ZLdwmFzS-lnssj@google.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2025 00:38:15 +0000
From: Sebastian Ene <sebastianene@...gle.com>
To: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Cc: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
	catalin.marinas@....com, joey.gouly@....com, oliver.upton@...ux.dev,
	snehalreddy@...gle.com, suzuki.poulose@....com,
	vdonnefort@...gle.com, yuzenghui@...wei.com, kvmarm@...ts.linux.dev,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	kernel-team@...roid.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] KVM: arm64: Move the ffa_to_linux definition to
 the ffa header

On Mon, Mar 03, 2025 at 11:44:28PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 28, 2025 at 10:09:19AM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > On Thu, 27 Feb 2025 23:12:37 +0000,
> > Sebastian Ene <sebastianene@...gle.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 08:25:57PM +0000, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 06:17:47PM +0000, Sebastian Ene wrote:
> > > > > Keep the ffa_to_linux error map in the header and move it away
> > > > > from the arm ffa driver to make it accessible for other components.
> > > > 
> > > > Do you plan to push/target these changes for v6.15 ? If not, I can take
> > > > this patch with other FF-A changes in my tree for v6.15. Otherwise, it
> > > > is must go along with other changes.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Yes, feel free to pick them with your changes and we can push them
> > > later.
> > 
> > So this series is not a 6.15 candidate?
> 
> I think this is 6.15 stuff once it's been reviewed. Sudeep's message is
> a little confusing as it refers to 6.15 twice (I guess he meant 6.14 the
> first time?).
> 

Right, I think it should be for 6.15 after it ticks the review boxes.

> Will

Thanks,
Seb