[GIT PULL] KVM/arm64 fixes for 6.18, take #1

[Paolo Bonzini]

On 10/14/25 14:28, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> Paolo,
> 
> As 6.18-rc1 is out, here's a collection of fixes that have accumulated
> over the past 3 weeks, addressing a pretty wide ranging set of issues.
> Nothing really jumps out, for once, and it's the usual mix of UAPI
> tidy-up, architecture fixups, and other random cleanups. Maybe a few
> more selftest updates than we usually do, but I'm sure this isn't
> going to last!
> 
> I'm already looking at some more fixes, so will probably be back next
> week with more presents...
> 
> You will notice that, just like I did with the main pull request, I'm
> adding message-ids to the tag instead of putting them into the
> individual patches. It looks rubbish, but I don't have a good
> alternative, and I'm not prepared to remove provenance information
> from the stuff I ferry upstream.
> 
> I'd welcome any guidance that would make things suck less for people
> reporting bugs and backporting stuff, despite the "Link: is bad"
> nonsense. Preferably something that we can adopt across architectures
> supporting KVM.
Because you're already unusually meticulous in tracking tags, I'm going 
to say whatever floats your boat.  If you want to add it to each patch, 
I'm certainly not going to be the one to complain, and/or to make your 
life harder, because of something like "Link".

Personally I think that there's a different between adding something 
mindlessly as a cargo cult, and adding it *unconditionally*.  Link is 
the latter, it's unconditional because it may be needed *later*.  In 
some cases it may not be strictly necessary (for example the tip bot 
used it to send replies, and that is served by notes just fine), but 
overall I don't get the hate either.

In fact, I'm very adamant about *needing* Link trailers for each patch 
in the RISC-V pull requests, which are the ones I look at most closely 
since the code is still in relative infancy.

Pulled, by the way. :)

Paolo