[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210422145805.53ca36be@elm.ozlabs.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2021 14:58:05 +1000
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...hwell.id.au>
To: Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>
Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
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
Hi Nadav,
On Thu, 22 Apr 2021 04:45:38 +0000 Nadav Amit <namit@...are.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.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
Powered by blists - more mailing lists