On Mon, Aug 10, 2026 at 03:05:08PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@kernel.org> writes:
> 
> > Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> writes:
> >
> >> On Wed, Aug 05, 2026 at 12:02:48PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V (Arm) wrote:
> >>> Changes from v8:
> >>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260707081351.1680209-1-aneesh.kumar@kernel.org
> >>> * Rebase onto the arm64 for-next/core branch.
> >>
> >> Was there a dependency on anything in for-next/core? We normally apply
> >> series on their own branch on top of the vanilla kernel (e.g. 7.2-rc3)
> >> and merge everything together in for-next/core. We (and many other
> >> maintainers) strongly prefer series posted on top of an -rc kernel
> >> (typically -rc1 to -rc3) unless there's a dependency on a different
> >> branch. Never based on -next or -next like branches (which is what
> >> for-next/core is, as the name implies).
> >>
> >
> > The reason is that these two patches create conflicts. Since this series
> > involves file movement, resolving those conflicts was not
> > straightforward. Therefore, I rebased the series on top of both of the
> > following commits:
> >
> > commit 24f55f511b9e ("virt: arm-cca-guest: use migrate_disable() for attestation token requests")
> > commit e62decaf98e7 ("arm64/coco: Add pKVM as a CC platform")
> >
> 
> Any chance of getting this picked up for the next merge window?

No, we're at -rc7 and you sent this half-way through -rc6. Regression
fixes only at this point, I'm afraid.

Will