Re: [PATCH] x86/irqflags: Fix build failure

[Borislav Petkov]

On Mon, Jan 19, 2026 at 03:22:57PM +0100, Jürgen Groß wrote:
> Why do you insist on keeping irqflags.h inconsistent by not defining
> some prototypes if CONFIG_PARAVIRT is set, but not CONFIG_PARAVIRT_XXL.

The only thing I'm insisting on is proper patch documentation because stable
patches do get looked at by stable folks so it better be clear what we're
fixing.

> Commit 22cc5ca5de52 was just missing the part of my patch. It was wrong.
> Should have moved the "#include <asm/paravirt.h>" from the
> CONFIG_PARAVIRT_XXL to the CONFIG_PARAVIRT umbrella, just like my
> patch.

So this makes more sense. Your current patch is fixing 22cc5ca5de52. But
nothing breaks currently, only after you switch to including paravirt-base.h
and not the big fat header.

Which means that the patch at the beginning of this thread should be the first
patch in your io set, it should have a Fixes: tag but we should NOT send it to
stable because nothing breaks there.

Your io patchset, at a quick glance, is cleanups so it won't go to stable
either so no need for that fix to go stable either.

Does that sound like a good strategy?

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

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