On Wed, 04 Sep 2024 17:17:58 +0100,
Will Deacon [off-list ref] wrote:

On Wed, Sep 04, 2024 at 01:55:03PM +0100, Joey Gouly wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Sep 04, 2024 at 12:43:02PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:

quoted

Right, there's quite a lot I need to do:

- Uncorrupt your patches
- Fix the conflict in the kvm selftests
- Drop the unnecessary ISBs
- Fix the ESR checking
- Fix the el2_setup labels
- Reorder the patches
- Drop the patch that is already in kvmarm

Working on it...

Sorry! I'm happy to rebase onto some arm64 branch if that will help, just let me know.

Please have a look at for-next/poe (also merged into for-next/core and
for-kernelci) and let me know what I got wrong!

For Marc: I reordered the series so the KVM bits (and deps) are all the
beginning, should you need them. The branch is based on a merge of the
shared branch you created previously.

I just had a quick check, and while there is a small conflict with
kvmarm/next, it is extremely minor (small clash in the vcpu_sysreg,
for which the resolving order doesn't matter), and not worth dragging
additional patches in the shared branch.

However, if KVM's own S1PIE series [1] ends up being merged (which I'd
really like), I will definitely have to pull the prefix in, as this is
a bit more involved conflict wise.

Thanks,

	M.

[1] http://lore.kernel.org/all/20240903153834.1909472-1-maz@kernel.org (local)

-- 
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.