| Message ID | 20250414141411.469e897f@canb.auug.org.au (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | linux-next: manual merge of the kvm tree with the tip tree | expand |
* 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/kvm/vmx/vmx.c > > between commits: > > c435e608cf59 ("x86/msr: Rename 'rdmsrl()' to 'rdmsrq()'") > 78255eb23973 ("x86/msr: Rename 'wrmsrl()' to 'wrmsrq()'") > > from the tip tree and commit: > > 7172c753c26a ("KVM: VMX: Move common fields of struct vcpu_{vmx,tdx} to a struct") > > 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. > - wrmsrl(MSR_KERNEL_GS_BASE, vmx->msr_guest_kernel_gs_base); > + wrmsrq(MSR_KERNEL_GS_BASE, vmx->msr_guest_kernel_gs_base); > - wrmsrl(MSR_KERNEL_GS_BASE, vmx->vt.msr_host_kernel_gs_base); > ++ wrmsrq(MSR_KERNEL_GS_BASE, vmx->vt.msr_host_kernel_gs_base); > - rdmsrl(MSR_KERNEL_GS_BASE, vmx->msr_guest_kernel_gs_base); > + rdmsrq(MSR_KERNEL_GS_BASE, vmx->msr_guest_kernel_gs_base); > - wrmsrl(MSR_KERNEL_GS_BASE, data); > + wrmsrq(MSR_KERNEL_GS_BASE, data); Looks good, thanks! Ingo
diff --cc arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c index cd0d6c1fcf9c,ef2d7208dd20..000000000000 --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the kvm tree got a conflict in: arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c between commits: c435e608cf59 ("x86/msr: Rename 'rdmsrl()' to 'rdmsrq()'") 78255eb23973 ("x86/msr: Rename 'wrmsrl()' to 'wrmsrq()'") from the tip tree and commit: 7172c753c26a ("KVM: VMX: Move common fields of struct vcpu_{vmx,tdx} to a struct") 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.