[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180117234326.24a2c0c3@canb.auug.org.au>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2018 23:43:26 +1100
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
KVM <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@....com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kvm tree with Linus' tree
Hi Thomas,
On Wed, 17 Jan 2018 13:23:17 +0100 (CET) Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 17 Jan 2018, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > On 17/01/2018 12:45, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > On Wed, 17 Jan 2018, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > >> [This is the same conflict I reported the day before yesterday, but one
> > >> of the commits has moved and another that contributed has been dropped.]
> > >> diff --cc arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeatures.h
> > >> index aa09559b2c0b,19f35be95f16..000000000000
> > >> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeatures.h
> > >> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeatures.h
> > >> @@@ -211,7 -209,6 +211,8 @@@
> > >> #define X86_FEATURE_AVX512_4FMAPS ( 7*32+17) /* AVX-512 Multiply Accumulation Single precision */
> > >>
> > >> #define X86_FEATURE_MBA ( 7*32+18) /* Memory Bandwidth Allocation */
> > >> +#define X86_FEATURE_RSB_CTXSW ( 7*32+19) /* Fill RSB on context switches */
> > >> ++#define X86_FEATURE_SEV ( 7*32+20) /* AMD Secure Encrypted Virtualization */
> > > Groan.....
> > >
> >
> > Brijesh,
> >
> > please send out again the (host-side) SEV series so that they are merged
> > through the TIP tree instead of kvm.git.
> >
> > Even though Boris did review it, there's just too much stuff in there
> > outside arch/x86/kvm.
>
> No. Keep it and lets next time coordinate the relevant bits and pieces
> better. I reserve that bit 20 and let Linus sort out the trivial conflict
> when merging the stuff.
I just picked that bit 20 when resolving the conflict. The original patch used
bit 11, so the resolution could use any other sensible bit.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
Powered by blists - more mailing lists