[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <42956218-bda4-4089-8f43-f7352ee73b4f@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2025 16:41:16 +0200
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>, Shivank Garg <shivankg@....com>
Cc: vbabka@...e.cz, willy@...radead.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
shuah@...nel.org, pbonzini@...hat.com, brauner@...nel.org,
viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, ackerleytng@...gle.com, paul@...l-moore.com,
jmorris@...ei.org, serge@...lyn.com, pvorel@...e.cz, bfoster@...hat.com,
tabba@...gle.com, vannapurve@...gle.com, chao.gao@...el.com,
bharata@....com, nikunj@....com, michael.day@....com, shdhiman@....com,
yan.y.zhao@...el.com, Neeraj.Upadhyay@....com, thomas.lendacky@....com,
michael.roth@....com, aik@....com, jgg@...dia.com, kalyazin@...zon.com,
peterx@...hat.com, jack@...e.cz, rppt@...nel.org, hch@...radead.org,
cgzones@...glemail.com, ira.weiny@...el.com, rientjes@...gle.com,
roypat@...zon.co.uk, ziy@...dia.com, matthew.brost@...el.com,
joshua.hahnjy@...il.com, rakie.kim@...com, byungchul@...com,
gourry@...rry.net, kent.overstreet@...ux.dev, ying.huang@...ux.alibaba.com,
apopple@...dia.com, chao.p.peng@...el.com, amit@...radead.org,
ddutile@...hat.com, dan.j.williams@...el.com, ashish.kalra@....com,
gshan@...hat.com, jgowans@...zon.com, pankaj.gupta@....com,
papaluri@....com, yuzhao@...gle.com, suzuki.poulose@....com,
quic_eberman@...cinc.com, aneeshkumar.kizhakeveetil@....com,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC V10 0/7] Add NUMA mempolicy support for KVM
guest-memfd
On 11.08.25 16:34, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2025, Shivank Garg wrote:
>> This series introduces NUMA-aware memory placement support for KVM guests
>> with guest_memfd memory backends. It builds upon Fuad Tabba's work (V17)
>> that enabled host-mapping for guest_memfd memory [1].
>
> Is this still actually an RFC? If so, why? If not, drop tag on the next version
> (if one is needed/sent).
There was the complaint that !RFC meant that it would be based on a
consumable upstream branch.
I think once this series is rebase on top of kvm-next, we can finally
drop the tag.
--
Cheers,
David / dhildenb
Powered by blists - more mailing lists