On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 12:57:40PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > 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. Fair enough, thanks for the explaination, I'll leave it alone then. greg k-h
