Return-Path: Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:39616 "EHLO mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727045AbeIBBwp (ORCPT ); Sat, 1 Sep 2018 21:52:45 -0400 Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2018 14:37:15 -0700 From: Greg KH To: arnd@arndb.de, pbonzini@redhat.com Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: WTF: patch "[PATCH] x86: kvm: avoid unused variable warning" was seriously submitted to be applied to the 4.18-stable tree? Message-ID: <20180901213714.GA6001@kroah.com> References: <153583706369194@kroah.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <153583706369194@kroah.com> Sender: stable-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sat, Sep 01, 2018 at 02:24:23PM -0700, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org wrote: > The patch below was submitted to be applied to the 4.18-stable tree. > > I fail to see how this patch meets the stable kernel rules as found at > Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst. Oops, hit the wrong button, this should have been my "this did not apply" message, sorry about that. This doesn't apply because: > > I could be totally wrong, and if so, please respond to > and let me know why this patch should be > applied. Otherwise, it is now dropped from my patch queues, never to be > seen again. > > thanks, > > greg k-h > > ------------------ original commit in Linus's tree ------------------ > > >From 7288bde1f9df6c1475675419bdd7725ce84dec56 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Arnd Bergmann > Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2018 23:37:50 +0200 > Subject: [PATCH] x86: kvm: avoid unused variable warning > > Removing one of the two accesses of the maxphyaddr variable led to > a harmless warning: > > arch/x86/kvm/x86.c: In function 'kvm_set_mmio_spte_mask': > arch/x86/kvm/x86.c:6563:6: error: unused variable 'maxphyaddr' [-Werror=unused-variable] > > Removing the #ifdef seems to be the nicest workaround, as it > makes the code look cleaner than adding another #ifdef. > > Fixes: 28a1f3ac1d0c ("kvm: x86: Set highest physical address bits in non-present/reserved SPTEs") that commit is not in a stable tree. It wasn't marked to be backpoted, should it? thanks, greg k-h