From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CA5B723AD; Sat, 8 Nov 2025 11:24:47 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1762601087; cv=none; b=EkVmSClyZxayeyr+upgG3yepWvfB1FRPTVF3cLYYT08/4kGi9bNgsIDCuZ1h3uWoAUNsKaXKjHSGUynZL9qi7i+tG3HjXvzDPVUM68E3igTyBK+q2x09jgr+HaLHYHvoCdspcCA9uC/e31LbPlEu8KI8kcp9jEp+ePQnSXKw3Kc= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1762601087; c=relaxed/simple; bh=WVKATNSn+dHdM78+/c06JPrFjsN/T65IToKcvJGfL6w=; h=Date:Message-ID:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=QNUFGPdHPncuKuxSOvfUDiFXPN4Gi4TSzSKCWr5eeMCv8oPtUkreJEjdR21MRy8UtvQU9OqUnPW3yKJefLVkhN9tYNvlKFKYN2jLzmKKt8e6mNHYAl1b54XT8flvEZ3XvDTWMWz76v5oEkOEeHvcd+senjwth4dhRimN8Ryl8GI= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=FzvaOpzs; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="FzvaOpzs" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 58FA3C19422; Sat, 8 Nov 2025 11:24:47 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1762601087; bh=WVKATNSn+dHdM78+/c06JPrFjsN/T65IToKcvJGfL6w=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=FzvaOpzs2h/YJ3CAsIcQXIX3cZWJZK0JuticaJOhS2Tn9hwUlQ5QWPuweu9BV7K4w etTd2syxrUJPu3TJCXHV80nkO2nffS9ZC4/Zqf8QsOu2xbC0UUgspPyAmX2ecrdoRH 0G0aqq2nx6iHn84ipieOUaY69aaGuLVKgWN2cI+UWwnG0n7wKcK6YQK/YobEkzLU/Q DIswDymoKo3qqjTYeN7requVHZO7YzBQ34i06vvEa71/i1h4r1TkAhJL8laWSWaR2v s8Dkquhiwqh884Q8pqwiRNhfWRT29N4tHXBE8nEPqf/Kk0Sau8vbV9UzEkjhsEv9mK 7LkFNr9P3LYqw== Received: from sofa.misterjones.org ([185.219.108.64] helo=goblin-girl.misterjones.org) by disco-boy.misterjones.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.98.2) (envelope-from ) id 1vHh3l-00000003TNw-03Dk; Sat, 08 Nov 2025 11:24:45 +0000 Date: Sat, 08 Nov 2025 11:24:44 +0000 Message-ID: <86a50wvkar.wl-maz@kernel.org> From: Marc Zyngier To: Suzuki K Poulose Cc: kvmarm@lists.linux.dev, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, Joey Gouly , Oliver Upton , Zenghui Yu , Peter Maydell Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] KVM: arm64: Fix handling of ID_PFR1_EL1.GIC In-Reply-To: <264b9f2d-5fca-4fda-a0ce-1b0223906560@arm.com> References: <20251030122707.2033690-1-maz@kernel.org> <264b9f2d-5fca-4fda-a0ce-1b0223906560@arm.com> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) SEMI-EPG/1.14.7 (Harue) FLIM-LB/1.14.9 (=?UTF-8?B?R29qxY0=?=) APEL-LB/10.8 EasyPG/1.0.0 Emacs/30.1 (aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu) MULE/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: kvm@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 185.219.108.64 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: suzuki.poulose@arm.com, kvmarm@lists.linux.dev, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, joey.gouly@arm.com, oliver.upton@linux.dev, yuzenghui@huawei.com, peter.maydell@linaro.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: maz@kernel.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on disco-boy.misterjones.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false On Fri, 07 Nov 2025 10:06:23 +0000, Suzuki K Poulose wrote: > > Hi Marc > > On 30/10/2025 12:27, Marc Zyngier wrote: > > Peter reported[0] that restoring a GICv2 VM fails badly, and correctly > > points out that ID_PFR1_EL1.GIC isn't writable, while its 64bit > > equivalent is. I broke that in 6.12. > > > > The other thing is that fixing the ID regs at runtime isn't great. > > specially when we could adjust them at the point where the GIC gets > > created. > > > > This small series aims at fixing these issues. I've only tagged the > > first one as a stable candidate. > > But, all 3 patches have the same Fixes tag, was that intentional ? Yes. Fixes don't necessarily need backporting, and the latter ones, while making things less awful, are not absolutely necessary to fix 6.12. However, I have no doubt that the Artificial Idiots that automatically backport stuff to stable will pick whatever seems to apply without any discrimination. I've stopped fighting that battle. M. -- Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.