On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 12:00 PM Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 15, 2024 at 09:59:23PM +0100, Greg KH wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 15, 2024 at 07:54:59PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 15, 2024 at 7:35 PM Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 15, 2024 at 11:22:02AM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > > > > [ Upstream commit a7939f01672034a58ad3fdbce69bb6c665ce0024 ] > > > > > > > > This really isn't this commit id, sorry. > > > > > > True, that's the point of the mainline kernel where the logic most > > > closely resembles the patch. stable-kernel-rules.rst does not quite > > > say what to do in this case. > > > > Ok, then just say, "this is not upstream" and the rest of your changelog > > is good. I'll edit it up tomorrow and apply it, thanks. > > Ok, now queued up for 6.6.y, but what about older kernel versions? 6.6 is where I tested that it works, and I didn't want to put an old kernel version in the "Cc" line, without even testing that a non-upstream patch applies there. The benefit would be absolutely marginal. People playing with Intel TDX are not going to use old kernels (6.1 counts as old) anyway, for example support for lazy acceptance of memory went into 6.5. Paolo
