* [PATCH] drm/i915/gvt: Add missing vfio_unregister_group_dev() call @ 2022-09-29 17:48 Jason Gunthorpe 2022-09-30 1:47 ` Tian, Kevin ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 11+ messages in thread From: Jason Gunthorpe @ 2022-09-29 17:48 UTC (permalink / raw) To: David Airlie, Daniel Vetter, dri-devel, intel-gfx, intel-gvt-dev, Jani Nikula, Joonas Lahtinen, Rodrigo Vivi, Tvrtko Ursulin, Zhenyu Wang Cc: Alex Williamson, Zhi Wang, Christoph Hellwig, stable When converting to directly create the vfio_device the mdev driver has to put a vfio_register_emulated_iommu_dev() in the probe() and a pairing vfio_unregister_group_dev() in the remove. This was missed for gvt, add it. Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Fixes: 978cf586ac35 ("drm/i915/gvt: convert to use vfio_register_emulated_iommu_dev") Reported-by: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com> --- drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) Should go through Alex's tree. diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c index 41bba40feef8f4..9003145adb5a93 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c @@ -1615,6 +1615,7 @@ static void intel_vgpu_remove(struct mdev_device *mdev) if (WARN_ON_ONCE(vgpu->attached)) return; + vfio_unregister_group_dev(&vgpu->vfio_device); vfio_put_device(&vgpu->vfio_device); } base-commit: c72e0034e6d4c36322d958b997d11d2627c6056c -- 2.37.3 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* RE: [PATCH] drm/i915/gvt: Add missing vfio_unregister_group_dev() call 2022-09-29 17:48 [PATCH] drm/i915/gvt: Add missing vfio_unregister_group_dev() call Jason Gunthorpe @ 2022-09-30 1:47 ` Tian, Kevin 2022-09-30 21:31 ` Alex Williamson 2022-10-05 20:17 ` Alex Williamson 2 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread From: Tian, Kevin @ 2022-09-30 1:47 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jason Gunthorpe, David Airlie, Daniel Vetter, dri-devel, intel-gfx, intel-gvt-dev, Jani Nikula, Joonas Lahtinen, Vivi, Rodrigo, Tvrtko Ursulin, Zhenyu Wang Cc: stable, Alex Williamson, Christoph Hellwig, Wang, Zhi A > From: Jason Gunthorpe > Sent: Friday, September 30, 2022 1:49 AM > > When converting to directly create the vfio_device the mdev driver has to > put a vfio_register_emulated_iommu_dev() in the probe() and a pairing > vfio_unregister_group_dev() in the remove. > > This was missed for gvt, add it. > > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org > Fixes: 978cf586ac35 ("drm/i915/gvt: convert to use > vfio_register_emulated_iommu_dev") > Reported-by: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com> > Signed-off-by: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com> Reviewed-by: Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@intel.com> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] drm/i915/gvt: Add missing vfio_unregister_group_dev() call 2022-09-29 17:48 [PATCH] drm/i915/gvt: Add missing vfio_unregister_group_dev() call Jason Gunthorpe 2022-09-30 1:47 ` Tian, Kevin @ 2022-09-30 21:31 ` Alex Williamson 2022-10-05 20:17 ` Alex Williamson 2 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread From: Alex Williamson @ 2022-09-30 21:31 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jason Gunthorpe Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin, David Airlie, intel-gfx, dri-devel, Rodrigo Vivi, stable, intel-gvt-dev, Christoph Hellwig, Zhi Wang On Thu, 29 Sep 2022 14:48:35 -0300 Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com> wrote: > When converting to directly create the vfio_device the mdev driver has to > put a vfio_register_emulated_iommu_dev() in the probe() and a pairing > vfio_unregister_group_dev() in the remove. > > This was missed for gvt, add it. > > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org > Fixes: 978cf586ac35 ("drm/i915/gvt: convert to use vfio_register_emulated_iommu_dev") > Reported-by: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com> > Signed-off-by: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com> > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c | 1 + > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > Should go through Alex's tree. Applied to vfio next branch for v6.1. Thanks for the quick fix! Alex > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c > index 41bba40feef8f4..9003145adb5a93 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c > @@ -1615,6 +1615,7 @@ static void intel_vgpu_remove(struct mdev_device *mdev) > if (WARN_ON_ONCE(vgpu->attached)) > return; > > + vfio_unregister_group_dev(&vgpu->vfio_device); > vfio_put_device(&vgpu->vfio_device); > } > > > base-commit: c72e0034e6d4c36322d958b997d11d2627c6056c ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] drm/i915/gvt: Add missing vfio_unregister_group_dev() call 2022-09-29 17:48 [PATCH] drm/i915/gvt: Add missing vfio_unregister_group_dev() call Jason Gunthorpe 2022-09-30 1:47 ` Tian, Kevin 2022-09-30 21:31 ` Alex Williamson @ 2022-10-05 20:17 ` Alex Williamson 2022-10-05 22:03 ` Alex Williamson 2022-10-06 11:35 ` Jason Gunthorpe 2 siblings, 2 replies; 11+ messages in thread From: Alex Williamson @ 2022-10-05 20:17 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jason Gunthorpe Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin, David Airlie, intel-gfx, dri-devel, Rodrigo Vivi, stable, intel-gvt-dev, Christoph Hellwig, Zhi Wang On Thu, 29 Sep 2022 14:48:35 -0300 Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com> wrote: > When converting to directly create the vfio_device the mdev driver has to > put a vfio_register_emulated_iommu_dev() in the probe() and a pairing > vfio_unregister_group_dev() in the remove. > > This was missed for gvt, add it. > > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org > Fixes: 978cf586ac35 ("drm/i915/gvt: convert to use vfio_register_emulated_iommu_dev") > Reported-by: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com> > Signed-off-by: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com> > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c | 1 + > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > Should go through Alex's tree. > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c > index 41bba40feef8f4..9003145adb5a93 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c > @@ -1615,6 +1615,7 @@ static void intel_vgpu_remove(struct mdev_device *mdev) > if (WARN_ON_ONCE(vgpu->attached)) > return; > > + vfio_unregister_group_dev(&vgpu->vfio_device); > vfio_put_device(&vgpu->vfio_device); > } > > > base-commit: c72e0034e6d4c36322d958b997d11d2627c6056c This is marked for stable, but I think the stable backport for existing kernels is actually: diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c index e3cd58946477..de89946c4817 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c @@ -1595,6 +1595,9 @@ static void intel_vgpu_remove(struct mdev_device *mdev) if (WARN_ON_ONCE(vgpu->attached)) return; + + vfio_unregister_group_dev(&vgpu->vfio_device); + vfio_uninit_group_dev(&vgpu->vfio_device); intel_gvt_destroy_vgpu(vgpu); } ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] drm/i915/gvt: Add missing vfio_unregister_group_dev() call 2022-10-05 20:17 ` Alex Williamson @ 2022-10-05 22:03 ` Alex Williamson 2022-10-06 11:37 ` Jason Gunthorpe 2022-10-06 11:35 ` Jason Gunthorpe 1 sibling, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread From: Alex Williamson @ 2022-10-05 22:03 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jason Gunthorpe Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin, David Airlie, intel-gfx, dri-devel, Rodrigo Vivi, stable, intel-gvt-dev, Christoph Hellwig, Zhi Wang On Wed, 5 Oct 2022 14:17:17 -0600 Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com> wrote: > On Thu, 29 Sep 2022 14:48:35 -0300 > Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com> wrote: > > > When converting to directly create the vfio_device the mdev driver has to > > put a vfio_register_emulated_iommu_dev() in the probe() and a pairing > > vfio_unregister_group_dev() in the remove. > > > > This was missed for gvt, add it. > > > > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org > > Fixes: 978cf586ac35 ("drm/i915/gvt: convert to use vfio_register_emulated_iommu_dev") > > Reported-by: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com> > > Signed-off-by: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com> > > --- > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c | 1 + > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > > > Should go through Alex's tree. > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c > > index 41bba40feef8f4..9003145adb5a93 100644 > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c > > @@ -1615,6 +1615,7 @@ static void intel_vgpu_remove(struct mdev_device *mdev) > > if (WARN_ON_ONCE(vgpu->attached)) > > return; Actually, what's the purpose of this ^^^^ ? We can't have a .remove callback that does nothing, this breaks removing the device while it's in use. Once we have the vfio_unregister_group_dev() fix below, we'll block until the device is unused, at which point vgpu->attached becomes false. Unless I'm missing something, I think we should also follow-up with a patch to remove that bogus warn-on branch, right? Thanks, Alex > > > > + vfio_unregister_group_dev(&vgpu->vfio_device); > > vfio_put_device(&vgpu->vfio_device); > > } > > > > > > base-commit: c72e0034e6d4c36322d958b997d11d2627c6056c > > This is marked for stable, but I think the stable backport for > existing kernels is actually: > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c > index e3cd58946477..de89946c4817 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c > @@ -1595,6 +1595,9 @@ static void intel_vgpu_remove(struct mdev_device *mdev) > > if (WARN_ON_ONCE(vgpu->attached)) > return; > + > + vfio_unregister_group_dev(&vgpu->vfio_device); > + vfio_uninit_group_dev(&vgpu->vfio_device); > intel_gvt_destroy_vgpu(vgpu); > } ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] drm/i915/gvt: Add missing vfio_unregister_group_dev() call 2022-10-05 22:03 ` Alex Williamson @ 2022-10-06 11:37 ` Jason Gunthorpe 2022-10-06 18:31 ` Alex Williamson 0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread From: Jason Gunthorpe @ 2022-10-06 11:37 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alex Williamson Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin, David Airlie, intel-gfx, dri-devel, Rodrigo Vivi, stable, intel-gvt-dev, Christoph Hellwig, Zhi Wang On Wed, Oct 05, 2022 at 04:03:56PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote: > We can't have a .remove callback that does nothing, this breaks > removing the device while it's in use. Once we have the > vfio_unregister_group_dev() fix below, we'll block until the device is > unused, at which point vgpu->attached becomes false. Unless I'm > missing something, I think we should also follow-up with a patch to > remove that bogus warn-on branch, right? Thanks, Yes, looks right to me. I question all the logical arround attached, where is the locking? Jason ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] drm/i915/gvt: Add missing vfio_unregister_group_dev() call 2022-10-06 11:37 ` Jason Gunthorpe @ 2022-10-06 18:31 ` Alex Williamson 2022-10-10 23:14 ` Tian, Kevin 2022-10-19 9:40 ` Wang, Zhi A 0 siblings, 2 replies; 11+ messages in thread From: Alex Williamson @ 2022-10-06 18:31 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Zhenyu Wang, Zhi Wang, Tian, Kevin Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin, Jason Gunthorpe, David Airlie, intel-gfx, dri-devel, Rodrigo Vivi, stable, intel-gvt-dev, Christoph Hellwig On Thu, 6 Oct 2022 08:37:09 -0300 Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 05, 2022 at 04:03:56PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote: > > We can't have a .remove callback that does nothing, this breaks > > removing the device while it's in use. Once we have the > > vfio_unregister_group_dev() fix below, we'll block until the device is > > unused, at which point vgpu->attached becomes false. Unless I'm > > missing something, I think we should also follow-up with a patch to > > remove that bogus warn-on branch, right? Thanks, > > Yes, looks right to me. > > I question all the logical arround attached, where is the locking? Zhenyu, Zhi, Kevin, Could someone please take a look at use of vgpu->attached in the GVT-g driver? It's use in intel_vgpu_remove() is bogus, the .release callback needs to use vfio_unregister_group_dev() to wait for the device to be unused. The WARN_ON/return here breaks all future use of the device. I assume @attached has something to do with the page table interface with KVM, but it all looks racy anyway. Also, whatever purpose vgpu->released served looks unnecessary now. Thanks, Alex ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* RE: [PATCH] drm/i915/gvt: Add missing vfio_unregister_group_dev() call 2022-10-06 18:31 ` Alex Williamson @ 2022-10-10 23:14 ` Tian, Kevin 2022-10-19 9:40 ` Wang, Zhi A 1 sibling, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread From: Tian, Kevin @ 2022-10-10 23:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alex Williamson, Zhenyu Wang, Wang, Zhi A Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin, Jason Gunthorpe, David Airlie, intel-gfx, dri-devel, Vivi, Rodrigo, stable, intel-gvt-dev, Christoph Hellwig > From: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com> > Sent: Friday, October 7, 2022 2:31 AM > > On Thu, 6 Oct 2022 08:37:09 -0300 > Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 05, 2022 at 04:03:56PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote: > > > We can't have a .remove callback that does nothing, this breaks > > > removing the device while it's in use. Once we have the > > > vfio_unregister_group_dev() fix below, we'll block until the device is > > > unused, at which point vgpu->attached becomes false. Unless I'm > > > missing something, I think we should also follow-up with a patch to > > > remove that bogus warn-on branch, right? Thanks, > > > > Yes, looks right to me. > > > > I question all the logical arround attached, where is the locking? > > Zhenyu, Zhi, Kevin, > > Could someone please take a look at use of vgpu->attached in the GVT-g > driver? It's use in intel_vgpu_remove() is bogus, the .release > callback needs to use vfio_unregister_group_dev() to wait for the > device to be unused. The WARN_ON/return here breaks all future use of > the device. I assume @attached has something to do with the page table > interface with KVM, but it all looks racy anyway. > > Also, whatever purpose vgpu->released served looks unnecessary now. > Thanks, > Zhi is looking at it. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] drm/i915/gvt: Add missing vfio_unregister_group_dev() call 2022-10-06 18:31 ` Alex Williamson 2022-10-10 23:14 ` Tian, Kevin @ 2022-10-19 9:40 ` Wang, Zhi A 2022-10-19 10:13 ` Tian, Kevin 1 sibling, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread From: Wang, Zhi A @ 2022-10-19 9:40 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alex Williamson, Zhenyu Wang, Tian, Kevin Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin, Jason Gunthorpe, David Airlie, intel-gfx, dri-devel, Vivi, Rodrigo, stable, intel-gvt-dev, Christoph Hellwig On 10/6/22 18:31, Alex Williamson wrote: > On Thu, 6 Oct 2022 08:37:09 -0300 > Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, Oct 05, 2022 at 04:03:56PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote: >>> We can't have a .remove callback that does nothing, this breaks >>> removing the device while it's in use. Once we have the >>> vfio_unregister_group_dev() fix below, we'll block until the device is >>> unused, at which point vgpu->attached becomes false. Unless I'm >>> missing something, I think we should also follow-up with a patch to >>> remove that bogus warn-on branch, right? Thanks, >> >> Yes, looks right to me. >> >> I question all the logical arround attached, where is the locking? > > Zhenyu, Zhi, Kevin, > > Could someone please take a look at use of vgpu->attached in the GVT-g > driver? It's use in intel_vgpu_remove() is bogus, the .release > callback needs to use vfio_unregister_group_dev() to wait for the > device to be unused. The WARN_ON/return here breaks all future use of > the device. I assume @attached has something to do with the page table > interface with KVM, but it all looks racy anyway. > Thanks for pointing this out. It was introduced in the GVT-g refactor patch series and Christoph might not want to touch the vgpu->released while he needed a new state. I dig it a bit. vgpu->attached would be used for preventing multiple open on a single vGPU and indicate the kvm_get_kvm() has been done. vgpu->released was to prevent the release before close, which is now handled by the vfio_device_*. What I would like to do are: 1) Remove the vgpu->released. 2) Use alock to protect vgpu->attached. After those were solved, the WARN_ON/return in the intel_vgpu_remove() should be safely removed as the .release will be called after .close_device deceases the vfio_device->refcnt to zero. Thanks, Zhi. > Also, whatever purpose vgpu->released served looks unnecessary now. > Thanks, > > Alex > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* RE: [PATCH] drm/i915/gvt: Add missing vfio_unregister_group_dev() call 2022-10-19 9:40 ` Wang, Zhi A @ 2022-10-19 10:13 ` Tian, Kevin 0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread From: Tian, Kevin @ 2022-10-19 10:13 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Wang, Zhi A, Alex Williamson, Zhenyu Wang Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin, Jason Gunthorpe, David Airlie, intel-gfx, dri-devel, Vivi, Rodrigo, stable, intel-gvt-dev, Christoph Hellwig > From: Wang, Zhi A <zhi.a.wang@intel.com> > Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2022 5:41 PM > > On 10/6/22 18:31, Alex Williamson wrote: > > On Thu, 6 Oct 2022 08:37:09 -0300 > > Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com> wrote: > > > >> On Wed, Oct 05, 2022 at 04:03:56PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote: > >>> We can't have a .remove callback that does nothing, this breaks > >>> removing the device while it's in use. Once we have the > >>> vfio_unregister_group_dev() fix below, we'll block until the device is > >>> unused, at which point vgpu->attached becomes false. Unless I'm > >>> missing something, I think we should also follow-up with a patch to > >>> remove that bogus warn-on branch, right? Thanks, > >> > >> Yes, looks right to me. > >> > >> I question all the logical arround attached, where is the locking? > > > > Zhenyu, Zhi, Kevin, > > > > Could someone please take a look at use of vgpu->attached in the GVT-g > > driver? It's use in intel_vgpu_remove() is bogus, the .release > > callback needs to use vfio_unregister_group_dev() to wait for the > > device to be unused. The WARN_ON/return here breaks all future use of > > the device. I assume @attached has something to do with the page table > > interface with KVM, but it all looks racy anyway. > > > Thanks for pointing this out. > > It was introduced in the GVT-g refactor patch series and Christoph might > not want to touch the vgpu->released while he needed a new state. > > I dig it a bit. vgpu->attached would be used for preventing multiple open > on a single vGPU and indicate the kvm_get_kvm() has been done. vfio core already ensures that .open_device() is called only once: vfio_device_open() { ... mutex_lock(&device->dev_set->lock); device->open_count++; if (device->open_count == 1) { ... if (device->ops->open_device) { ret = device->ops->open_device(device); ... } > vgpu->released was to prevent the release before close, which is now > handled by the vfio_device_*. > > What I would like to do are: > 1) Remove the vgpu->released. 2) Use alock to protect vgpu->attached. > > After those were solved, the WARN_ON/return in the intel_vgpu_remove() > should be safely removed as the .release will be called after .close_device > deceases the vfio_device->refcnt to zero. > > Thanks, > Zhi. > > > Also, whatever purpose vgpu->released served looks unnecessary now. > > Thanks, > > > > Alex > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] drm/i915/gvt: Add missing vfio_unregister_group_dev() call 2022-10-05 20:17 ` Alex Williamson 2022-10-05 22:03 ` Alex Williamson @ 2022-10-06 11:35 ` Jason Gunthorpe 1 sibling, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread From: Jason Gunthorpe @ 2022-10-06 11:35 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alex Williamson Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin, David Airlie, intel-gfx, dri-devel, Rodrigo Vivi, stable, intel-gvt-dev, Christoph Hellwig, Zhi Wang On Wed, Oct 05, 2022 at 02:17:17PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote: > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c > > index 41bba40feef8f4..9003145adb5a93 100644 > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c > > @@ -1615,6 +1615,7 @@ static void intel_vgpu_remove(struct mdev_device *mdev) > > if (WARN_ON_ONCE(vgpu->attached)) > > return; > > > > + vfio_unregister_group_dev(&vgpu->vfio_device); > > vfio_put_device(&vgpu->vfio_device); > > } > > > > > > base-commit: c72e0034e6d4c36322d958b997d11d2627c6056c > > This is marked for stable, but I think the stable backport for > existing kernels is actually: Yes probably, this patch won't apply so if anyone wants to see it in the stable series they need to follow the process to send the reworked version. Jason ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2022-10-19 10:13 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 11+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2022-09-29 17:48 [PATCH] drm/i915/gvt: Add missing vfio_unregister_group_dev() call Jason Gunthorpe 2022-09-30 1:47 ` Tian, Kevin 2022-09-30 21:31 ` Alex Williamson 2022-10-05 20:17 ` Alex Williamson 2022-10-05 22:03 ` Alex Williamson 2022-10-06 11:37 ` Jason Gunthorpe 2022-10-06 18:31 ` Alex Williamson 2022-10-10 23:14 ` Tian, Kevin 2022-10-19 9:40 ` Wang, Zhi A 2022-10-19 10:13 ` Tian, Kevin 2022-10-06 11:35 ` Jason Gunthorpe
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).