[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4161146b195efee57393b65f8e9022d4bc7e443e.camel@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2025 18:49:15 +0000
From: "Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>
To: "seanjc@...gle.com" <seanjc@...gle.com>
CC: "bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>, "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"thorsten.blum@...ux.dev" <thorsten.blum@...ux.dev>, "hpa@...or.com"
<hpa@...or.com>, "mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>, "tglx@...utronix.de"
<tglx@...utronix.de>, "dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com"
<dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, "pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev"
<linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "kas@...nel.org" <kas@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND] KVM: TDX: Use struct_size and simplify
tdx_get_capabilities
On Thu, 2025-11-13 at 08:29 -0800, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> Assuming you're tracking linux-next, I wouldn't bother adding kvm-x86 as kvm-x86/next
> is fed into linux-next. I do push to topic branches, e.g. kvm-x86/tdx, before
> merging to kvm-x86/next, but at best you might "gain" a day or two, and the entire
> reason I do "half" pushes is so that I can run everything through my testing
> before "officially" publishing it to the world.
>
> All in all, explicitly tracking anything kvm-x86 would likely be a net negative.
Yea, linux-next and Linus releases. Ok, we'll leave it. I was just thinking
about your lack of TDX testing setup, and wondering if it could help. All good.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists