[PATCH 0/2] KVM enablement for facility bit 81 and 82

Khaled Elmously khalid.elmously at canonical.com
Thu Feb 8 18:55:42 UTC 2018


On 2018-02-02 17:58:22 , Joseph Salisbury wrote:
> On 02/02/2018 05:54 PM, Joseph Salisbury wrote:
> > From: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger at de.ibm.com>
> >
> > BugLink: http://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1747090
> >
> > == SRU Justification ==
> > Mainline commit 35b3fde6203b9 is a KVM patch for s390x to provide
> > facility bits 81 (ppa15) and 82 (bpb).  This is required for branch prediction
> > behaviour changes.
> >
> > This is the public bug for SRU.  There is also a priave bug report:
> > http://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1743560
> >
> > There is a qemu portion to this fix:
> > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/cover/862801/
> >
> > This fix is also requred in Artful and Bionic, but Xenial requires a prereq commit,
> > so it is being SRU'd separatly.
> >
> > == Fixes ==
> > ed8dda0bf74b ("Enable all facility bits that are known good for passthrough")
> > 35b3fde6203b ("KVM: s390: wire up bpb feature")
> >
> >
> > == Regression Potential ==
> > Low, this fix is limited to s390.
> >
> > == Test Case ==
> > A test kernel was built with these patches and tested by the original bug
> > reporter.  The bug reporter states the test kernel resolved the bug.
> >
> >
> >
> > Alexander Yarygin (1):
> >   KVM: s390: Enable all facility bits that are known good for
> >     passthrough
> >
> > Christian Borntraeger (1):
> >   KVM: s390: wire up bpb feature
> >
> >  arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h |  3 ++-
> >  arch/s390/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h |  3 +++
> >  arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c         | 16 ++++++++++++++--
> >  include/uapi/linux/kvm.h         |  1 +
> >  4 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> This request is for Xenial.  I missed adding that to the subject. 
> Artful and Bionic are in a seperate SRU request.
> 

I'm curious how you realized that you need a pre-requisite commit (given that the desired commit would have applied more-or-less cleanly anyway as it did for artful)? Was that by testing?

The patchset doesn't look wrong to me at all, I'm just asking for my general knowledge.


> 
> -- 
> kernel-team mailing list
> kernel-team at lists.ubuntu.com
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kernel-team




More information about the kernel-team mailing list