WTF: patch "[PATCH] x86/kvm/vmx: Fix coding style in vmx_setup_l1d_flush()" was seriously submitted to be applied to the 4.18-stable tree?
Subsystems (3)
[email protected]
maintainerThe 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.
I could be totally wrong, and if so, please respond to <[email protected]> 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 ------------------
Quoted 1 line
From
d806afa495e2e2a1a726e26c5e44f27818e804c1Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Yi Wang <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2018 13:42:39 +0800
Subject: [PATCH] x86/kvm/vmx: Fix coding style in vmx_setup_l1d_flush()
Substitute spaces with tab. No functional changes.
Message-Id: <[email protected]>
arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c +9 -9
@@ -219,15 +219,15 @@ static int vmx_setup_l1d_flush(enum vmx_l1d_flush_state l1tf)return 0 ; } -if (boot_cpu_has (X86_FEATURE_ARCH_CAPABILITIES )) { -u64 msr; - -rdmsrl (MSR_IA32_ARCH_CAPABILITIES , msr); -if (msr &ARCH_CAP_SKIP_VMENTRY_L1DFLUSH ) { - l1tf_vmx_mitigation =VMENTER_L1D_FLUSH_NOT_REQUIRED ; -return 0 ; - } - } +if (boot_cpu_has (X86_FEATURE_ARCH_CAPABILITIES )) { +u64 msr; + +rdmsrl (MSR_IA32_ARCH_CAPABILITIES , msr); +if (msr &ARCH_CAP_SKIP_VMENTRY_L1DFLUSH ) { + l1tf_vmx_mitigation =VMENTER_L1D_FLUSH_NOT_REQUIRED ; +return 0 ; + } + }/* If set to auto use the default l1tf mitigation method */ if (l1tf ==VMENTER_L1D_FLUSH_AUTO ) {
Paolo Bonzini
maintainerQuoted 9 lines · On 01/09/2018 23:23, [email protected] 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.I could be totally wrong, and if so, please respond to <[email protected]> and let me know why this patch should be applied. Otherwise, it is now dropped from my patch queues, never to be seen again.
Since the L1TF patches are still seeing a little churn, I submitted all of them for stable, in order to avoid future conflicts.
Paolo
Greg KH
maintainerQuoted 6 lines · Paolo Bonzini
Quoted 5 lines · On 01/09/2018 23:23, [email protected] 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.
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 4 lines
I could be totally wrong, and if so, please respond to <[email protected]> and let me know why this patch should be applied. Otherwise, it is now dropped from my patch queues, never to be seen again.
Since the L1TF patches are still seeing a little churn, I submitted all of them for stable, in order to avoid future conflicts.
I don't understand. Was this patch needed for something else? Or is it already merged?
Totally confused,
greg k-h
Paolo Bonzini
maintainerQuoted 12 lines · Greg KH
Quoted 11 lines · Paolo Bonzini
Quoted 9 lines · On 01/09/2018 23:23, [email protected] 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.I could be totally wrong, and if so, please respond to <[email protected]> and let me know why this patch should be applied. Otherwise, it is now dropped from my patch queues, never to be seen again.
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 2 lines
Since the L1TF patches are still seeing a little churn, I submitted all of them for stable, in order to avoid future conflicts.
I don't understand. Was this patch needed for something else? Or is it already merged?
Totally confused,
This patch was the very last in the series. I didn't leave it out, just in case something else comes later on top. We're backporting 100 or so patches anyway...
Paolo