| Message ID | 20210422143056.62a3fee4@canb.auug.org.au (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | linux-next: manual merge of the kvm tree with the tip tree | expand |
> On Apr 21, 2021, at 9:30 PM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote: > > Hi all, > > Today's linux-next merge of the kvm tree got a conflict in: > > arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c > > between commit: > > 4ce94eabac16 ("x86/mm/tlb: Flush remote and local TLBs concurrently") > > from the tip tree and commit: > > 2b519b5797d4 ("x86/kvm: Don't bother __pv_cpu_mask when !CONFIG_SMP") > > from the kvm tree. Thank you and sorry for that. > static void __init kvm_smp_prepare_boot_cpu(void) > { > /* > @@@ -655,15 -668,9 +673,9 @@@ static void __init kvm_guest_init(void > > if (kvm_para_has_feature(KVM_FEATURE_STEAL_TIME)) { > has_steal_clock = 1; > - pv_ops.time.steal_clock = kvm_steal_clock; > + static_call_update(pv_steal_clock, kvm_steal_clock); I do not understand how this line ended in the merge fix though. Not that it is correct or wrong, but it is not part of either of these 2 patches AFAIK.
Hi Nadav, On Thu, 22 Apr 2021 04:45:38 +0000 Nadav Amit <namit@vmware.com> wrote: > > > static void __init kvm_smp_prepare_boot_cpu(void) > > { > > /* > > @@@ -655,15 -668,9 +673,9 @@@ static void __init kvm_guest_init(void > > > > if (kvm_para_has_feature(KVM_FEATURE_STEAL_TIME)) { > > has_steal_clock = 1; > > - pv_ops.time.steal_clock = kvm_steal_clock; > > + static_call_update(pv_steal_clock, kvm_steal_clock); > > I do not understand how this line ended in the merge fix though. > > Not that it is correct or wrong, but it is not part of either of > these 2 patches AFAIK. It came from another patch that did not cause a conflict but ended up in the diff output.
On 22/04/21 06:45, Nadav Amit wrote: > >> On Apr 21, 2021, at 9:30 PM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> Today's linux-next merge of the kvm tree got a conflict in: >> >> arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c >> >> between commit: >> >> 4ce94eabac16 ("x86/mm/tlb: Flush remote and local TLBs concurrently") >> >> from the tip tree and commit: >> >> 2b519b5797d4 ("x86/kvm: Don't bother __pv_cpu_mask when !CONFIG_SMP") >> >> from the kvm tree. > > Thank you and sorry for that. No problem, this is a reasonable conflict to have. Paolo >> static void __init kvm_smp_prepare_boot_cpu(void) >> { >> /* >> @@@ -655,15 -668,9 +673,9 @@@ static void __init kvm_guest_init(void >> >> if (kvm_para_has_feature(KVM_FEATURE_STEAL_TIME)) { >> has_steal_clock = 1; >> - pv_ops.time.steal_clock = kvm_steal_clock; >> + static_call_update(pv_steal_clock, kvm_steal_clock); > > I do not understand how this line ended in the merge fix though. > > Not that it is correct or wrong, but it is not part of either of > these 2 patches AFAIK. >
diff --cc arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c index 5d32fa477a62,224a7a1ed6c3..000000000000 --- a/arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c
Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the kvm tree got a conflict in: arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c between commit: 4ce94eabac16 ("x86/mm/tlb: Flush remote and local TLBs concurrently") from the tip tree and commit: 2b519b5797d4 ("x86/kvm: Don't bother __pv_cpu_mask when !CONFIG_SMP") from the kvm tree. I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree is submitted for merging. You may also want to consider cooperating with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly complex conflicts.