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;
Date:   Tue, 26 Jul 2022 17:50:39 +0000
From:   Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc:     Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@huawei.com>, 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
Subject: Re: [PATCH MANUALSEL 5.10 1/2] KVM: x86: lapic: don't touch
 irr_pending in kvm_apic_update_apicv when inhibiting it
Message-ID: <YuApb56AjxaeOirP@google.com>
References: <20220222140532.211620-1-sashal@kernel.org>
 <e9e3f438-8699-abba-a1f8-d4d8bfbd63ed@redhat.com>
 <6d900dc3-44c0-5a0d-a545-1a51936e6a80@huawei.com>
 <Yt8sAWd6qvEtZVji@google.com>
 <3f2f83a3-e240-a509-38ca-1b88bdc179d4@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <3f2f83a3-e240-a509-38ca-1b88bdc179d4@redhat.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jul 26, 2022, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> 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".

Ah, I misunderstood the question.  I'll get out of the way.