From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-path: <ak@linux.intel.com>
Received: from mga18.intel.com ([134.134.136.126])
	by Galois.linutronix.de with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256)
	(Exim 4.80)
	(envelope-from <ak@linux.intel.com>)
	id 1fGpTP-0001Ce-Mc
	for speck@linutronix.de; Thu, 10 May 2018 19:35:24 +0200
Date: Thu, 10 May 2018 10:35:18 -0700
From: Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>
Subject: [MODERATED] Re: [PATCH v4 0/8] L1TFv4 0
Message-ID: <20180510173518.GC13616@tassilo.jf.intel.com>
References: <cover.1525900921.git.ak@linux.intel.com>
 <58f2834a-80f4-ae07-935a-b87eb7712126@suse.cz>
 <20180510080417.GG32366@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <20180510160722.GB13616@tassilo.jf.intel.com>
 <20180510165759.GC15817@pd.tnic>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20180510165759.GC15817@pd.tnic>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: speck@linutronix.de
List-ID: <speck.linutronix.de>

On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 06:57:59PM +0200, speck for Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 09:07:22AM -0700, speck for Andi Kleen wrote:
> > The code should be the right version.
> 
> Well, it still needs to be rebased on current speck/master.

Keep in mind that this one will be embargoed much longer than SSB,
so likely it will exist on its own for a long time. 

I think it's only the conflicts in the feature bits anyways.

The rebase should be fairly straight forward, so it seemed logistically
better to have independendent patchkits for now.

Let me know if anyone disagrees.

-Andi