On Tue, May 19, 2026 at 11:41:26AM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: > On Wed, 2026-05-13 at 18:24 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > > > > See commit https://git.kernel.org/torvalds/c/49a1a2c70a7f which adds a > > > new guest-visible feature in revision 3, but allowed userspace to > > > restore the old behaviour by setting it to revision 2. All my patch > > > above does, is make it possible to set it to revision 1 as > > > well. Because https://git.kernel.org/torvalds/c/d53c2c29ae0d previously > > > changed the behaviour and bumped the default to 2 *without* allowing > > > userspace to restore the prior behaviour, and we've been carrying a > > > *revert* of that patch. > > > > > > Why would we *not* accept such a patch? > > > > Agreed. Even ignoring your revert, there's no reason why any upgrade > > past 49a1a2c70a7f has to be from after d53c2c29ae0d. > > So where do we go from here? > > I assume you'll be taking this Documentation patch via the KVM tree? > > But what about the actual fix at > https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/ > > This is a simple and unintrusive bug fix to make KVM/arm64 follow the > "common sense" requirement that the doc patch codifies, apparently > being rejected with the rather bizarre claim that KVM has no *need* to > maintain guest-visible compatibility across host kernel changes. > > So... what next? Is one of the other KVM/arm64 maintainers going to > speak up? Paolo would you consider taking the fixes through your tree > directly? > > Does Arm not actually *care* whether AArch64 is considered a stable and > mature platform for KVM hosting?
Hey, come on. Marc cares more about this stuff than anybody else on the planet. He's been single-handedly maintaining the tree for the past couple of releases while Oliver was out and he's on the end of a _lot_ of patches. I'm only cc'd on a fraction of the KVM/arm64 changes and it's bedlam. Will
