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 87DB917C72 for ; Tue, 2 Jul 2024 08:36:23 +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=1719909383; cv=none; b=uR4OoeTdQCr1gMKetae8mCuK+hfr+l3qh7fnNBH4gGCTflk15m5HbD2X1mTK90KzhKPPO9GnnKNOA/DJYUg5JStDxd2A7H1LAeNkpKEP8cjc417t+xd0k3N6CMirX519hrcpiyt8evT8rFvDBjV/sIMbdURVOaffZCOi64TXAsY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1719909383; c=relaxed/simple; bh=OKkoSHW1x7JRrFJ1g0E3bowB2xX2QXIvgfi0ltu5Zcs=; h=Date:Message-ID:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=DUzy1KOaKlLPv47i2beYfh6IDHqWqqJH7grPtHt8I940mN8ingZQsNfVYg/nBXWf7KvRAfZq33yf1ysPvFLcA9nlrnwPDKqeZWrEWktg4PhuMXLEmQd2t3IAcBdYKdr3h44QXWjg0Q39bFFbtvhgDU8g5jtXCI6ukU/G7ePVAVA= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=sujjuxdg; 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="sujjuxdg" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0D247C116B1; Tue, 2 Jul 2024 08:36:23 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1719909383; bh=OKkoSHW1x7JRrFJ1g0E3bowB2xX2QXIvgfi0ltu5Zcs=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=sujjuxdgWJTLk5PIVyik4PEbjixPCsfESJj7xhgoBK+9M3L62pB+anWLxBhBZit8P zhvyCvXGMNjzuYtRHCXfTITFEB8OTwdYhkk2W69uMSNsg90d1OiHnNQ+yCeKqcxSvm GM4bdetHtsMdZqkgJU78MSngoKVPe5vy71uLHdS8xOhRR5p5zrhbVjeq8gPZii6eLp no1ycP+uDlMiX08n8ECByk5o1xA9/+suMagLMftzQyFOxDaWN+q0rw8sjCV2yMTyUK bsHFEiFXeWWd50iiZdbvtyeARkl1RpWyPOauoyBcO5DsvbAtuj7IZTDcW7D5u2qhQg h5qccxpcgk0+A== 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 4.95) (envelope-from ) id 1sOYzs-0092RS-Ok; Tue, 02 Jul 2024 09:36:20 +0100 Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2024 09:36:20 +0100 Message-ID: <867ce4i41n.wl-maz@kernel.org> From: Marc Zyngier To: "Gowans, James" Cc: "gregkh@linuxfoundation.org" , "yuzenghui@huawei.com" , "chenxiang66@hisilicon.com" , "oliver.upton@linux.dev" , "stable@vger.kernel.org" , "Sironi, Filippo" Subject: Re: FAILED: patch "[PATCH] KVM: arm64: vgic-v4: Make the doorbell request robust w.r.t" failed to apply to 5.10-stable tree In-Reply-To: <62f253b96773478773a6cc79977663a687e0f8eb.camel@amazon.com> References: <2023072324-aviation-delirious-b27d@gregkh> <62f253b96773478773a6cc79977663a687e0f8eb.camel@amazon.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/29.2 (aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu) MULE/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: stable@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: jgowans@amazon.com, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, yuzenghui@huawei.com, chenxiang66@hisilicon.com, oliver.upton@linux.dev, stable@vger.kernel.org, sironi@amazon.de X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: maz@kernel.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on disco-boy.misterjones.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false On Mon, 01 Jul 2024 11:56:57 +0100, "Gowans, James" wrote: > > On Sun, 2023-07-23 at 22:41 +0200, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org wrote: > > The patch below does not apply to the 5.10-stable tree. > > If someone wants it applied there, or to any other stable or longterm > > tree, then please email the backport, including the original git commit > > id to . > > Blast from the past, but we've recently been bitten by this bug when > running a v5.10 kernel. I'm going to back-port it to v5.10 and v5.15, > resolve the conflicts and post it. > > Marc, please will you take a look and see if you're happy with the > backport? The main change is going back to the old style of vCPU flag > manipulation. Thanks for having a stab at this. I eyeballed the two patches, and couldn't see anything untoward. However, I haven't tested them, as life is too short to run prehistoric kernels ;-). M. -- Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.