linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kvms390 tree with the kvm-arm tree

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <fbab4d70-e7df-b93c-d728-b5316bade2f1@de.ibm.com>
Date:   Wed, 28 Jun 2017 09:10:00 +0200
From:   Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@...ibm.com>,
        Christoffer Dall <cdall@...columbia.edu>,
        Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>
Cc:     Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Jones <drjones@...hat.com>,
        Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
        Gleb Natapov <gleb@...nel.org>, KVM <kvm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kvms390 tree with the kvm-arm
 tree

On 06/28/2017 08:02 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> On Fri, 9 Jun 2017 14:28:56 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>>
>> Today's linux-next merge of the kvms390 tree got a conflict in:
>>
>>   arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h
>>
>> between commit:
>>
>>   2387149eade2 ("KVM: improve arch vcpu request defining")
>>
>> from the kvm-arm tree and commit:
>>
>>   8611a6a64661 ("KVM: s390: CMMA tracking, ESSA emulation, migration mode")
>>
>> from the kvms390 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.
>>
>> -- 
>> Cheers,
>> Stephen Rothwell
>>
>> diff --cc arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h
>> index 9c3bd94204ac,a8cafed79eb4..000000000000
>> --- a/arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h
>> +++ b/arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h
>> @@@ -42,9 -42,11 +42,11 @@@
>>   #define KVM_HALT_POLL_NS_DEFAULT 80000
>>   
>>   /* s390-specific vcpu->requests bit members */
>>  -#define KVM_REQ_ENABLE_IBS         8
>>  -#define KVM_REQ_DISABLE_IBS        9
>>  -#define KVM_REQ_ICPT_OPEREXC       10
>>  -#define KVM_REQ_START_MIGRATION   11
>>  -#define KVM_REQ_STOP_MIGRATION    12
>>  +#define KVM_REQ_ENABLE_IBS	KVM_ARCH_REQ(0)
>>  +#define KVM_REQ_DISABLE_IBS	KVM_ARCH_REQ(1)
>>  +#define KVM_REQ_ICPT_OPEREXC	KVM_ARCH_REQ(2)
>> ++#define KVM_REQ_START_MIGRATION	KVM_ARCH_REQ(3)
>> ++#define KVM_REQ_STOP_MIGRATION	KVM_ARCH_REQ(4)
>>   
>>   #define SIGP_CTRL_C		0x80
>>   #define SIGP_CTRL_SCN_MASK	0x3f
> 
> With the merge window appraoching, I assume that these 2 trees will
> merge in the kvm tree soon.  This is just a reminder that this conflict
> still exists (I think).

Yes, these 2 trees will be merged in the kvm tree and Paolo/Radim will resolve
the conflict.