[PATCH v5 0/7] KVM: arm64: Add support for FEAT_TLBIRANGE

[Raghavendra Rao Ananta]

Allright, I'll resend the series along with David's patches.

Thank you.
Raghavendra

On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 7:14 AM Sean Christopherson <seanjc at google.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2023, Oliver Upton wrote:
> > +cc Sean
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 14, 2023 at 06:57:01PM -0700, Raghavendra Rao Ananta wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 14, 2023 at 5:19 AM Oliver Upton <oliver.upton at linux.dev> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Raghavendra,
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Jun 06, 2023 at 07:28:51PM +0000, Raghavendra Rao Ananta wrote:
> > > > > The series is based off of upstream v6.4-rc2, and applied David
> > > > > Matlack's common API for TLB invalidations[1] on top.
> > > >
> > > > Sorry I didn't spot the dependency earlier, but this isn't helpful TBH.
> > > >
> > > > David's series was partially applied, and what remains no longer cleanly
> > > > applies to the base you suggest. Independent of that, my *strong*
> > > > preference is that you just send out a series containing your patches as
> > > > well as David's. Coordinating dependent efforts is the only sane thing
> > > > to do. Also, those patches are 5 months old at this point which is
> > > > ancient history.
> > > >
> > > Would you rather prefer I detach this series from David's as I'm not
> > > sure what his plans are for future versions?
> > > On the other hand, the patches seem simple enough to rebase and give
> > > another shot at review, but may end up delaying this series.
> > > WDYT?
> >
> > In cases such as this you'd typically coordinate with the other
> > developer to pick up their changes as part of your series. Especially
> > for this case -- David's refactoring is _pointless_ without another
> > user for that code (i.e. arm64). As fun as it might be to antagonize
> > Sean, that series pokes x86 and I'd like an ack from on it.
> >
> > So, please post a combined series that applies cleanly to an early 6.4
> > rc of your choosing, and cc all affected reviewers/maintainers.
>
> +1