[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <142AD46E-6B41-49F3-90C1-624649A20764@vmware.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2021 04:45:38 +0000
From: Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
CC: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, KVM <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kvm tree with the tip tree
> On Apr 21, 2021, at 9:30 PM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.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.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists