Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1581988104-16628-1-git-send-email-wanpengli@tencent.com>
 <1581988104-16628-2-git-send-email-wanpengli@tencent.com> <CANRm+CyHmdbsw572x=8=GYEOw-YQCXhz89i9+VEmROBVAu+rvg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKwvOd=bDW6K3PC7S5fiG5n_kwgqhbnVsBHUSGgYaPQY-L_YmA@mail.gmail.com>
 <87mu95jxy7.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com> <9506da2d-53fb-c4a3-55b4-fb78e185e9c2@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <9506da2d-53fb-c4a3-55b4-fb78e185e9c2@redhat.com>
From:   Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>
Date:   Thu, 27 Feb 2020 15:49:17 -0800
Message-ID: <CAKwvOd=tOURgAFUNQPX3DDqd-eAbZ9kMmyksXEUK-a2N_Gky1g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND v2 2/2] KVM: Pre-allocate 1 cpumask variable per
 cpu for both pv tlb and pv ipis
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc:     Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, kvm <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
        Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 5:27 AM Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On 26/02/20 14:10, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> > Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com> writes:
> >
> >> (putting Paolo in To: field, in case email filters are to blame.
> >> Vitaly, maybe you could ping Paolo internally?)
> >>
> >
> > I could, but the only difference from what I'm doing right now would
> > proabbly be the absence of non-@redaht.com emails in To/Cc: fields of
> > this email :-)
> >
> > Do we want this fix for one of the last 5.6 RCs or 5.7 would be fine?
> > Personally, I'd say we're not in a great hurry and 5.7 is OK.
>
> I think we can do it for 5.6, but we're not in a great hurry. :)  The
> rc4 pull request was already going to be relatively large and I had just
> been scolded by Linus so I postponed this, but I am going to include it
> this week.

No rush; soak time is good.
-- 
Thanks,
~Nick Desaulniers