Re: [PATCH 6.12 000/160] 6.12.7-rc1 review

[Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Fri, Dec 27, 2024 at 01:23:40PM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Dec 2024 13:04:11 +0000,
> Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > 
> > On Thu, Dec 26, 2024 at 01:41:41PM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > > On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 19:12:40 +0000,
> > > Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@linaro.org> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > On Mon, 23 Dec 2024 at 21:31, Greg Kroah-Hartman
> > > > <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 6.12.7 release.
> > > > > There are 160 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response
> > > > > to this one.  If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please
> > > > > let me know.
> > > > >
> > > > > Responses should be made by Fri, 27 Dec 2024 15:53:30 +0000.
> > > > > Anything received after that time might be too late.
> > > > >
> > > > > The whole patch series can be found in one patch at:
> > > > >         https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v6.x/stable-review/patch-6.12.7-rc1.gz
> > > > > or in the git tree and branch at:
> > > > >         git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git linux-6.12.y
> > > > > and the diffstat can be found below.
> > > > >
> > > > > thanks,
> > > > >
> > > > > greg k-h
> > > > 
> > > > The following test regressions found on arm64 selftests
> > > > kvm kvm_set_id_regs.
> > > > 
> > > > This was reported and fixed by a patch [1].
> > > > 
> > > > * graviton4-metal, kselftest-kvm
> > > >   - kvm_set_id_regs
> > > > 
> > > > * rk3399-rock-pi-4b-nvhe, kselftest-kvm
> > > >   - kvm_set_id_regs
> > > > 
> > > > * rk3399-rock-pi-4b-protected, kselftest-kvm
> > > >   - kvm_set_id_regs
> > > > 
> > > > * rk3399-rock-pi-4b-vhe, kselftest-kvm
> > > >   - kvm_set_id_regs
> > > > 
> > > >  Reported-by: Linux Kernel Functional Testing <lkft@linaro.org>
> > > 
> > > This is totally harmless, and if anything, indicates that the *fix*
> > > is doing its job, and that this patch *must* be backported.
> 
> I think I caused the confusion here, as "this patch" refers to the
> original fix which has been queued, rather than the patch to the
> selftest, which I don't consider a candidate for backports.
> 
> > Ok, but for some bizare reason someone stripped OFF the Fixes: tag,
> 
> "Someone" == we, the KVM/arm64 maintainers.
> 
> And that's on purpose. A selftest patch doesn't fix anything, and I
> really don't want to use the "Fixes:" tag as a type of dependency.
> Additionally, these tests are mostly pointless anyway, specially this
> one, which really should be deleted.

So should I drop something?  Revert it?  Add a new commit?  What is
going to help solve the issue that we now have selftests failing?

still confused,

greg k-h