Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-crypto+bounces-4125-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240501085210.2213060-1-michael.roth@amd.com>
 <20240510015822.503071-1-michael.roth@amd.com> <20240510015822.503071-2-michael.roth@amd.com>
 <Zj4oFffc7OQivyV-@google.com> <566b57c0-27cd-4591-bded-9a397a1d44d5@redhat.com>
 <20240510163719.pnwdwarsbgmcop3h@amd.com> <a47e7b49-96d2-4e7b-ae39-a3bfe6b0ed83@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <a47e7b49-96d2-4e7b-ae39-a3bfe6b0ed83@redhat.com>
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 10 May 2024 19:25:34 +0200
Message-ID: <CABgObfaJaDr38BsTYRrMQzYr-wK8cLW+TJr5ewsgBEcm8ghb3g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v15 22/23] KVM: SEV: Fix return code interpretation for
 RMP nested page faults
To: Michael Roth <michael.roth@amd.com>
Cc: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-coco@lists.linux.dev, 
	linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, 
	jroedel@suse.de, thomas.lendacky@amd.com, hpa@zytor.com, ardb@kernel.org, 
	vkuznets@redhat.com, jmattson@google.com, luto@kernel.org, 
	dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, slp@redhat.com, pgonda@google.com, 
	peterz@infradead.org, srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com, 
	rientjes@google.com, dovmurik@linux.ibm.com, tobin@ibm.com, bp@alien8.de, 
	vbabka@suse.cz, kirill@shutemov.name, ak@linux.intel.com, tony.luck@intel.com, 
	sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com, alpergun@google.com, 
	jarkko@kernel.org, ashish.kalra@amd.com, nikunj.dadhania@amd.com, 
	pankaj.gupta@amd.com, liam.merwick@oracle.com, papaluri@amd.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 6:59=E2=80=AFPM Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>=
 wrote:
> Well, the merge window starts next sunday, doesn't it?  If there's an
> -rc8 I agree there's some leeway, but that is not too likely.
>
> >> Once we sort out the loose ends of patches 21-23, you could send
> >> it as a pull request.
> > Ok, as a pull request against kvm/next, or kvm/queue?
>
> Against kvm/next.

Ah no, only kvm/queue has the preparatory hooks - they make no sense
without something that uses them.  kvm/queue is ready now.

Also, please send the pull request "QEMU style", i.e. with patches
as replies.

If there's an -rc8, I'll probably pull it on Thursday morning.

Paolo