On 6/23/2025 7:58 PM, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > On 6/23/25 16:13, Vlastimil Babka wrote: >> On 6/23/25 16:08, Shivank Garg wrote: >>> >>> >>>> >>>> In general, LGTM, but I think the actual fix should be separated from exporting it for guest_memfd purposes? >>>> >>>> Also makes backporting easier, when EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL_FOR_MODULES does not exist yet ... >>>> >>> I agree. I did not think about backporting conflicts when sending the patch. >>> >>> Christian, I can send it as 2 separate patches to make it easier? >> >> The proper way is to send the fix without the export, and then add the >> export only when adding its user. > > Note: AFAIU either way the new user would be depending on a patch in a vfs > tree (maybe scheduled for an 6.16 rc and not the next merge window?) if > that's an issue for the development. Thanks Vlastimil. I have sent a revised patch [1] without EXPORT. The EXPORT can be added later through the KVM tree with the guest_memfd changes. Hopefully, anon_inode_make_secure_inode() change will be merged by then. Christian, could you please replace the current patch with V3 [1]? And Would you also be willing to provide your Acked-by when EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL_FOR_MODULES change addition is submitted later? Thank you for the patience and review :) [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250626191425.9645-5-shivankg@xxxxxxx Best Regards, Shivank
