linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kvm tree with the tip 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: <e69ecd92-f87c-eb8b-c288-83efb13bb3eb@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 22 Apr 2021 08:29:50 +0200
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:     Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:     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 22/04/21 06:45, Nadav Amit wrote:
> 
>> 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.

No problem, this is a reasonable conflict to have.

Paolo

>>   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.
>