On Wed, 04 Sep 2024 17:17:58 +0100,
Will Deacon <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 04, 2024 at 01:55:03PM +0100, Joey Gouly wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 04, 2024 at 12:43:02PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > Right, there's quite a lot I need to do:
> > >
> > > - Uncorrupt your patches
> > > - Fix the conflict in the kvm selftests
> > > - Drop the unnecessary ISBs
> > > - Fix the ESR checking
> > > - Fix the el2_setup labels
> > > - Reorder the patches
> > > - Drop the patch that is already in kvmarm
> > >
> > > Working on it...
> >
> > Sorry! I'm happy to rebase onto some arm64 branch if that will help, just
> > let me know.
>
> Please have a look at for-next/poe (also merged into for-next/core and
> for-kernelci) and let me know what I got wrong!
>
> For Marc: I reordered the series so the KVM bits (and deps) are all the
> beginning, should you need them. The branch is based on a merge of the
> shared branch you created previously.
I just had a quick check, and while there is a small conflict with
kvmarm/next, it is extremely minor (small clash in the vcpu_sysreg,
for which the resolving order doesn't matter), and not worth dragging
additional patches in the shared branch.
However, if KVM's own S1PIE series [1] ends up being merged (which I'd
really like), I will definitely have to pull the prefix in, as this is
a bit more involved conflict wise.
Thanks,
M.
[1] http://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
