On Tue, Jul 22, 2025, Fuad Tabba wrote: > On Mon, 21 Jul 2025 at 18:33, Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jul 21, 2025, Fuad Tabba wrote: > > > > The below diff applies on top. I'm guessing there may be some intermediate > > > > ugliness (I haven't mapped out exactly where/how to squash this throughout the > > > > series, and there is feedback relevant to future patches), but IMO this is a much > > > > cleaner resting state (see the diff stats). > > > > > > So just so that I am clear, applying the diff below to the appropriate > > > patches would address all the concerns that you have mentioned in this > > > email? > > > > Yes? It should, I just don't want to pinky swear in case I botched something. > > Other than this patch not applying, nah, I think it's all good ;P. I > guess base-commit: 9eba3a9ac9cd5922da7f6e966c01190f909ed640 is > somewhere in a local tree of yours. There are quite a few conflicts > and I don't think it would build even if based on the right tree, > e.g., KVM_CAP_GUEST_MEMFD_MMAP is a rename of KVM_CAP_GMEM_MMAP, > rather an addition of an undeclared identifier. > > That said, I think I understand what you mean, and I can apply the > spirit of this patch. > > Stay tuned for v16. Want to point me at your branch? I can run it through my battery of tests, and maybe save you/us from having to spin a v17.
