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:   Fri, 14 Oct 2022 16:18:38 +0000
From:   Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To:     Like Xu <like.xu.linux@gmail.com>
Cc:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] KVM: x86/pmu: Stop adding speculative Intel GP
 PMCs that don't exist yet
Message-ID: <Y0mL3g2Eamp4bMHD@google.com>
References: <20220919091008.60695-1-likexu@tencent.com>
 <Y0CAHch5UR2Lp0tU@google.com>
 <a90c28df-eb54-f20a-13a5-9ee4172f870e@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <a90c28df-eb54-f20a-13a5-9ee4172f870e@gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Oct 14, 2022, Like Xu wrote:
> On 8/10/2022 3:38 am, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > Does this need Cc:stable@vger.kernel.org?  Or is this benign enough that we don't
> > care?
> 
> Considering stable kernel may access IA32_OVERCLOCKING_STATUS as well,
> cc stable list helps to remove the illusion of pmu msr scope for stable tree
> maintainers.

Is that a "yes, this should be Cc'd stable" or "no, don't bother"?