On Sun, May 12, 2024, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On Sun, May 12, 2024 at 9:14 AM Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 11:17 PM Michael Roth <michael.roth@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Paolo, > > > > > > This pull request contains v15 of the KVM SNP support patchset[1] along > > > with fixes and feedback from you and Sean regarding PSC request processing, > > > fast_page_fault() handling for SNP/TDX, and avoiding uncessary > > > PSMASH/zapping for KVM_EXIT_MEMORY_FAULT events. It's also been rebased > > > on top of kvm/queue (commit 1451476151e0), and re-tested with/without > > > 2MB gmem pages enabled. > > > > Pulled into kvm-coco-queue, thanks (and sorry for the sev_complete_psc > > mess up - it seemed too good to be true that the PSC changes were all > > fine...). > > ... and there was a missing signoff in "KVM: SVM: Add module parameter > to enable SEV-SNP" so I ended up not using the pull request. But it > was still good to have it because it made it simpler to double check > what you tested vs. what I applied. > > Also I have already received the full set of pull requests for > submaintainers, so I put it in kvm/next. It's not impossible that it > ends up in the 6.10 merge window, so I might as well give it a week or > two in linux-next. I certainly don't object to getting coverage in linux-next, but unless we have a very good reason to push for 6.10, which doesn't seem to be the case, my strong preference is to wait until 6.11 for the official merge. I haven't had a chance to look at v15, and at a quick glance, the SNP_EXTENDED_GUEST_REQUEST support in particular still looks kludgy. In general, this all feels very rushed.
