Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-100510-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240312155641.4003683-1-yosryahmed@google.com>
 <d24c8736-d963-4aa5-a3cb-5cc1110e3ca8@intel.com> <CAJD7tkYXfFiOQMpM+GkR7a=aUxFM-smDc-ZFTTtFu2Kbd2KoPQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20240312161337.GFZfB_MdSFtAUXjeLU@fat_crate.local>
In-Reply-To: <20240312161337.GFZfB_MdSFtAUXjeLU@fat_crate.local>
From: Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@google.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2024 09:23:48 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJD7tkYa_NuX2_PD1sEn6kE6Q0Z0VCyq2T2HK_Qdj-_94+OG_w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] x86/mm: Use IPIs to synchronize LAM enablement
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>, x86@kernel.org, 
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, 
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, 
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, 
	"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>, 
	Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, 
	linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, 
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 9:14=E2=80=AFAM Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> wrot=
e:
>
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 09:09:30AM -0700, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
> > My bad, I lost track of when I sent v1 and saw Kirill's comment when I
> > woke up so I addressed that. FWIW, v1 and v2 are almost identical
> > except for a small change in patch 2 to address Kirill's comment. I
> > will hold off on sending anything else this week.
>
> and while you do, you can have a look at
>
> https://kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/development-process.html

Sure, although I am kinda familiar with that. It would be useful to
point out what part(s) I may be violating :)

>
> And we're in a merge window now so no queueing of new patches for
> 2 weeks unless they're regressions.

Right, I am aware of that part. According to the tip tree handbook I
shouldn't expect them to be handled during the merge window, but do
x86 folks prefer I hold off on sending them until after the merge
window?