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: <935a60a0-4197-54a1-8365-08556779e8f3@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 10 Jan 2022 10:28:12 +0800
From:   Like Xu <like.xu.linux@...il.com>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc:     Like Xu <like.xu@...ux.intel.com>, Like Xu <likexu@...cent.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
        Zhu Lingshan <lingshan.zhu@...el.com>,
        KVM <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kvm tree with the tip tree

On 10/1/2022 10:16 am, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the kvm tree got a conflict in:
> 
>    arch/x86/kvm/pmu.c
> 
> between commits:
> 
>    b9f5621c9547 ("perf/core: Rework guest callbacks to prepare for static_call support")
>    73cd107b9685 ("KVM: x86: Drop current_vcpu for kvm_running_vcpu + kvm_arch_vcpu variable")
> 
> from the tip tree and commit:
> 
>    40ccb96d5483 ("KVM: x86/pmu: Add pmc->intr to refactor kvm_perf_overflow{_intr}()")
> 
> from the kvm 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.
> 

The fix looks good to me. Thank you and please move on.