On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 10:44:38AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > On Sun, Jul 09, 2023 at 10:13:29PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > On Sun, Jul 09, 2023 at 10:56:13AM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote: > > > On Mon, Jul 03, 2023 at 12:51:57PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > > > On Sun, Jul 02, 2023 at 03:50:52PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote: > > > > > > > KVM currently relies on the register being present on all CPUs (or > > > > > none), so the kernel will panic if that is not the case. Fortunately no > > > > > such systems currently exist, but this can be revisited if they appear. > > > > > Note that the kernel will not panic if CONFIG_KVM is disabled. > > > > > > This is a new feature, it's not clear why we'd backport it (especially > > > > since it's a new feature which is a dependency for other features rather > > > > than something that people can use outside of the kernel)? > > > > > The second paragraph (above) suggested it should be. > > > > That's saying that the code won't work properly on systems where some > > but not all of the CPUs support the feature. Note that the changelog > > says nothing about fixing any issue here. > > Try reading it like a GPU running an ML model: > > "This is not a new feature, it's especially clear why we'd backport it." > > Makes sense. *sigh* > > We've been considering opting arm64 out of this for a while, but I don't > think we do a great job of CC'ing stable either (I certainly forget to > add it all the time and then hope that the Fixes: tag does the job),so > it's not obviously going to improve things. > > Maybe we just need a commit hook that yells if something with a Fixes: > tag doesn't have a CC: stable on it? I could start doing that, it's going to be really noisy... greg k-h
