Re: [PATCH v16 00/45] arm64: Support for Arm CCA in KVM

[Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>]

On Mon, 03 Aug 2026 16:06:24 +0100,
Steven Price <steven.price@arm.com> wrote:
> 
> On 03/08/2026 16:01, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > On Mon, 03 Aug 2026 14:43:16 +0100,
> > Steven Price <steven.price@arm.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> This series is based on the guest_memfd in-place conversion v9 tree[1],
> >> which is itself based on kvm-x86/next. It is also available as a git
> >> repository:
> > 
> > Well done. Series on top of another random series, based on a random
> > tree. Unusable. Have you realised there are reasons why we (KVM/arm64)
> > ask people to base their series on a *released* tag from Linus' tree?
> > This means that Sashiko cannot, once again, provide any feedback on
> > this series, as it fails to apply.
> > 
> > Just to avoid any ambiguity: Sashiko reviews, as annoying as they are,
> > are not optional. They are very much mandatory, and I wish I could
> > turn back the clocks to run it on my own code...
> > 
> > Running it on your own is not enough, because *I* want to see what the
> > tool finds. Not to mention that non-Gemini runs of sashiko are much
> > less interesting (unsurprisingly).
> 
> Sorry, but I'm not sure what you expect me to do - clearly I want to
> base my changes on top of the guest_memfd series which is being worked
> on and not just ignore that work. So I've based my changes on top of the
> tree that Ackerley published.

But that completely ignores the way the KVM/arm64 tree is managed. If
you base a series on a bunch of unmerged patches, how do you expect
people to do a sensible job at reviewing it? Now I need to ingest
another pile of random patches just to review this set?

Not happening, sorry.

	M.

-- 
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.