Re: [PATCH] x86/coco: Define cc_vendor without CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_CC_PLATFORM

[Borislav Petkov]

On Sat, Feb 03, 2024 at 09:08:06AM -0700, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
> I have no issues with blaming a9ef277488cf but I think da86eb961184 is
> equally blamable for removing the option to use cc_vendor in generic x86
> code where CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_CC_PLATFORM may not be set. Hopefully that at
> least carifies the "which is it?" question, I'll do whatever you think
> is best.

I guess I wasn't clear enough, sorry about that. Of the two, that one
should be in Fixes which is the first one which causes the build issue
so that the fix can be backported to the respective kernels.

IOW, if you can't trigger with da86eb961184, then a9ef277488cf should be
in Fixes and your fix should go through the KVM tree, along with
a9ef277488cf.

How does that sound?

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette