Re: [PATCH v15 00/37] arm64: Support for Arm CCA in KVM
Marc Zyngier <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | dev.linux.lists.linux-coco,dev.linux.lists.kvmarm,org.infradead.lists.linux-arm-kernel,org.kernel.vger.kvm,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Thu, 16 Jul 2026 10:20:49 +0100, Steven Price <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 16/07/2026 09:36, Marc Zyngier wrote: > > On Wed, 15 Jul 2026 15:28:02 +0100, > > Steven Price <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> This series adds support for running protected VMs using KVM under the > >> Arm Confidential Compute Architecture (CCA). > >> > >> It is the second part of the Arm CCA host support that was previously > >> posted as a single 44-patch series. The generic firmware/RMM support has > >> now been split into a separate 6-patch base series[0] so that it can also be > >> used by other work (and hopefully make reviewing a little easier). This > >> series applies on top of that base. > > > > Splitting the series this way means that no Sashiko review can occur, > > as nothing applies on its own: > > > > https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260715142841.80544-1-steven.price%40arm.com > > > > In the future, please post this with the relevant patches as an > > integral prefix, so that we can make use of the tooling. > > Ah, I wonder if there's a way to teach Sashiko to deal with dependencies > like this? Anyway if you're happy with everything in one series and > (hopefully) merging a prefix earlier then I'll go back to that - it's > easier for me too. Sashiko had plenty to say about the first series, and you've been Cc'd on the reports. I'd expect responses to the reports explaining why this isn't a problem, or how you are planning to address it. Thanks, M. -- Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.