On Wed, 04 Sep 2024 17:17:58 +0100, Will Deacon <will@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 04, 2024 at 01:55:03PM +0100, Joey Gouly wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 04, 2024 at 12:43:02PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > > > Right, there's quite a lot I need to do: > > > > > > - Uncorrupt your patches > > > - Fix the conflict in the kvm selftests > > > - Drop the unnecessary ISBs > > > - Fix the ESR checking > > > - Fix the el2_setup labels > > > - Reorder the patches > > > - Drop the patch that is already in kvmarm > > > > > > Working on it... > > > > Sorry! I'm happy to rebase onto some arm64 branch if that will help, just let me know. > > Please have a look at for-next/poe (also merged into for-next/core and > for-kernelci) and let me know what I got wrong! > > For Marc: I reordered the series so the KVM bits (and deps) are all the > beginning, should you need them. The branch is based on a merge of the > shared branch you created previously. I just had a quick check, and while there is a small conflict with kvmarm/next, it is extremely minor (small clash in the vcpu_sysreg, for which the resolving order doesn't matter), and not worth dragging additional patches in the shared branch. However, if KVM's own S1PIE series [1] ends up being merged (which I'd really like), I will definitely have to pull the prefix in, as this is a bit more involved conflict wise. Thanks, M. [1] http://lore.kernel.org/all/20240903153834.1909472-1-maz@xxxxxxxxxx -- Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
