On Wed, 14 May 2025 17:01:55 +0100
Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, May 14, 2025 at 04:52:18PM +0200, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> >
> >
> > Am 14.05.25 um 16:48 schrieb Claudio Imbrenda:
> >
> > > > > > > A possible fix for this would be to rename PROT_NONE in the enum to PROT_TYPE_NONE.
> > > > >
> > > > > please write a patch to rename PROT_NONE in our enum to
> > > > > PROT_TYPE_DUMMY, I can review it quickly.
> > > > >
> > > > > if Paolo has no objections, I'm fine with having the patch go through
> > > > > the mm tree
> > > >
> > > > Yes, lets do a quick fix and I can also do
> > > > Acked-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > for a s/PROT_NONE/PROT_TYPE_NONE/g
> > > > patch.
> > >
> > > I'd rather have PROT_TYPE_DUMMY, since it's a dummy value and not
> > > something that indicates "no protection"
> >
> > makes sense.
>
> Thanks for the quick response guys, did you want us to write the patch?
yes please
please don't forget to also add the following tags:
Fixes: b3cefd6bf16e ("KVM: s390: Pass initialized arg even if unused")
Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> We can put something together quickly if so and cc you on it.
yep
>
> Ack on the comment above, of course!
>
> Cheers, Lorenzo
