Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <3f2f83a3-e240-a509-38ca-1b88bdc179d4@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 26 Jul 2022 18:29:53 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.11.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH MANUALSEL 5.10 1/2] KVM: x86: lapic: don't touch
 irr_pending in kvm_apic_update_apicv when inhibiting it
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
        Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@huawei.com>
Cc:     Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        stable@vger.kernel.org, Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@redhat.com>,
        tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, bp@alien8.de,
        dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, x86@kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org
References: <20220222140532.211620-1-sashal@kernel.org>
 <e9e3f438-8699-abba-a1f8-d4d8bfbd63ed@redhat.com>
 <6d900dc3-44c0-5a0d-a545-1a51936e6a80@huawei.com>
 <Yt8sAWd6qvEtZVji@google.com>
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <Yt8sAWd6qvEtZVji@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 7/26/22 01:49, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 25, 2022, Zenghui Yu wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 2022/3/2 1:10, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>> On 2/22/22 15:05, Sasha Levin wrote:
>>>> From: Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@redhat.com>
>>>>
>>>> [ Upstream commit 755c2bf878607dbddb1423df9abf16b82205896f ]
>>>
>>> Acked-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
>>
>> What prevented it to be accepted into 5.10-stable? It can still be
>> applied cleanly on top of linux-5.10.y.
> 
> KVM opts out of the AUTOSEL logic and instead uses MANUALSEL.  The basic idea is
> the same, use scripts/magic to determine what commits that _aren't_ tagged with an
> explicit "Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org" should be backported to stable trees, the
> difference being that MANUALSEL requires an explicit Acked-by from the maintainer.

But as far as I understand it was not applied, and neither was "KVM: 
x86: nSVM: deal with L1 hypervisor that intercepts interrupts but lets 
L2 control them".

Paolo