ACK/Cmnt: [SRU][F][PULL] KVM: Enable storage key checking for intercepted instruction
frank.heimes at canonical.com
Fri Mar 4 13:14:00 UTC 2022
the change set comes indeed form the s390x/KVM developers at IBM and is
signed by the upstream maintainer - so it's fully backed by them.
The tests are - like you assumed - not trivial, hence unit tests were
written and run.
It's always a balance on what to incl. in this submission to the kernel
team's mailing-list and what I leave at the Launchpad bug.
The LP bug contains in comment #1 (lower part) some "Notes on
backport<s>",that briefly describe the what and what.
I think that's what you were roughly looking for:
(One may find some more details like stats and a lengthy SRU Justification).
I understand you that you want more details on the backport as part of the
PR submission - will keep that in mind for the next time ...
Thx, for your feedback and ACK,
On Fri, Mar 4, 2022 at 1:54 PM Tim Gardner <tim.gardner at canonical.com>
> Acked-by: Tim Gardner <tim.gardner at canonical.com>
> In theory these patches look OK since you'd have to be an s390 KVM
> expert to understand the changes. I'd really like to see simple
> explanations for the backports in the future. Just a short explanation
> of how conflicts were resolved would be nice.
> There are no test results in the bug report. I just have to assume this
> pile works, 'cause I guess its going to be your problem if it doesn't.
> On 3/4/22 04:31, frank.heimes at canonical.com wrote:
> > https://git.launchpad.net/~fheimes/+git/lp1962831/
> Tim Gardner
> Canonical, Inc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the kernel-team