From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Gleixner Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kvm tree with Linus' and the tip trees Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 16:08:20 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: References: <20180115133459.27b8f7f1@canb.auug.org.au> <20180116005508.bl4p7sdncqiihq6h@gmail.com> <1b2f251b-70ae-11fd-dab7-8d1180de483b@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1b2f251b-70ae-11fd-dab7-8d1180de483b@redhat.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Paolo Bonzini Cc: Ingo Molnar , Stephen Rothwell , =?ISO-8859-2?Q?Radim_Kr=E8m=E1=F8?= , KVM , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , Peter Zijlstra , Linux-Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , David Woodhouse , Tom Lendacky , Brijesh Singh , Borislav Petkov List-Id: linux-next.vger.kernel.org On Tue, 16 Jan 2018, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 16/01/2018 01:55, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > * Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > > >> On 15/01/2018 19:36, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > >>>> Can KVM folks please stop doing random changes to the cpufeatures code > >>>> without talking to x86 maintainers and Borislav? > >>>> > >>>> This wants to go through TIP or at least reviewed and acked. > >>> In fact it needs to go through TIP. We spent a lot of effort to make the > >>> backporting of all this mess simple and this is just shooting a hole in it. > >> > >> I do understand why you want this to go through TIP, but I'm not sure > >> why a change to Processor Tracing is related to PTI or retpolines. I'm > >> also not sure why it is a problem for backportability, since we always > >> try to send pull requests after TIP. Is it because 7*32+15 will be free > >> in 4.16 but not earlier? > > > > It is because certain central x86 changes (such as changes to processor flags) > > are kept on a v4.14 base to keep the PTI backporting efforts manageable. > > > > Please revert (or rebase) this change from the KVM tree, and submit it separately, > > as it should have been done to begin with. Please also follow this process in the > > future: all x86 changes outside arch/x86/kvm/ need an explicit ack from an x86 > > maintainer. > > I've always done it like that until > https://marc.info/?l=kvm&m=149335647027790 got no response for three > months, then I thought you didn't care. Well, I certainly cared, but was kaisered enough to not look. > We will drop Intel PT support and delay it to 4.17. Luwei, since your > patches have issues with incorrect use of the MSR bitmap, this is > probably a good thing anyway (better bisectability). Please repost your > patches at the end of the merge window, then we will wait for an ack > from Thomas/Ingo/Peter. Can we get all cpu feature bit specific patches now please so we can move them through TIP? Thanks, tglx