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 A3D6936D50A; Mon, 1 Dec 2025 20:37:05 +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=1764621427; cv=none; b=B41RYifdE2RNVXW5S65hZLBF8aOJ/H1FD0bgFLh5+gQx0Ki3mfOTNzlCC6VfiQeT9fMANzlJVfYYuY9D9kyfTbEnlc8iPEUocrv0qprGhkrmWMtK9VNFjGwJf8ZxDeAdRGWujD29bQ02vuYqxMtRIYQrd09hkb2DRJqUQqwgvXI= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1764621427; c=relaxed/simple; bh=PmhAts491XzuroHVSlK8NY9S+n+kVfTtaW7AXN6Kq3o=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=leqeop9LJysWcrz5aDSlZrU4EGe3Yw9LiCteUMnm9BAstiAzCuH5L+myH7yKH2TZokfCgwfpJmvvKULhjAknuT3ao+UdUitFa33bLIPB2VGMhN/Bg5kfbC12wFF5n/7KuKHx9ufGbrMkiab+VKK3Or595on84/DwtRsXKtECVrw= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=Qi22TA//; 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="Qi22TA//" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D78BAC4CEF1; Mon, 1 Dec 2025 20:37:00 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1764621425; bh=PmhAts491XzuroHVSlK8NY9S+n+kVfTtaW7AXN6Kq3o=; h=Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=Qi22TA//4UhyZnUo34ywTeiqH2Ar85pgmIalWuJljf3u48IW9oDXRE2Q08wJa6Y3a hr5QsG3gO6KOGsUvXYO/Gpfv6whabj2O6vVdCEz2Xjx6pFPNKiG4BWIU27yJ7F6E/x T5blgTqII3AsketDw1OXlnbit7qd4vhllSlE710rFR3uJqkpYrTFkVMyEfl8y81n4R yG6Cyw98/yGe1Goo9VdcKeD2H1iKOIJKKLtsftzbCjn1p3RF1NXZVmFIhY6A1Y9N2c FJVCQHiTYzWtqDZUdoxNk1/vw6S2ed72f3bOOIeYFerIlM/o/nCaoYu/DghBbByxD7 w06MmMmaqwXjg== Message-ID: <420865fb-34cc-43a8-820c-b15b5f24a27c@kernel.org> Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2025 21:36:58 +0100 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-efi@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/4] mm: Add support for unaccepted memory hotplug To: Borislav Petkov Cc: Kiryl Shutsemau , "Pratik R. Sampat" , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-coco@lists.linux.dev, linux-efi@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, ardb@kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, osalvador@suse.de, thomas.lendacky@amd.com, michael.roth@amd.com References: <20251126223127.GIaSd_v7juUkaW4RTA@fat_crate.local> <20251127181233.GBaSiUkaLzwANS_6WT@fat_crate.local> <20251128113411.GAaSmIs0kSWGhCYkaA@fat_crate.local> <47927c25-a317-488a-823f-ac0588f4eee4@kernel.org> <20251201111201.GAaS14AX18qeHN20xf@fat_crate.local> <052d7f47-edb6-4978-bc9a-c7eae469720f@kernel.org> <20251201191036.GEaS3oLBY8PEuE91Ap@fat_crate.local> <20251201202507.GFaS35o7WtLJOM0_jh@fat_crate.local> From: "David Hildenbrand (Red Hat)" Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <20251201202507.GFaS35o7WtLJOM0_jh@fat_crate.local> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 12/1/25 21:25, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Mon, Dec 01, 2025 at 09:10:26PM +0100, David Hildenbrand (Red Hat) wrote: >> Just to be clear, I don't think it exist and also I don't think that it >> should exist. > > By that logic if it doesn't exist and someone sends a patch, I should simply > ignore a review comment about that patch breaking some non-existent ABI and > simply take it. Well, we can always discuss and see if there is a way to not break a specific use case, independent of any ABI stability guarantees. > > Well, it certainly works for me. > > Unless you folks come-a-runnin' later screaming it broke some use case of > yours. Heh, not me, but likely some of the CoCo folks regarding this specific use case (kexec in a confidential VM). > And then we're back to what I've been preaching on this thread from the > very beginning: having a common agreement on what ABI Linux enforces. Right. Maybe Kiryl knows more about this specific case as he brought up that these structures are versioned. -- Cheers David