[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <86a628mi9q.wl-maz@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2023 08:46:57 +0000
From: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc: KVM <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
Christoffer Dall <cdall@...columbia.edu>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: duplicate patches in the kvm-x86 tree
Hi Stephen,
On Tue, 24 Jan 2023 01:55:15 +0000,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> The following commits are also in other tree(s?) as different
> commits (but the same patches):
>
> 0b6639e8ed87 ("KVM: s390: Move hardware setup/unsetup to init/exit")
> 0c2be59e0b53 ("KVM: x86: Use KBUILD_MODNAME to specify vendor module name")
> 1334f214d19f ("KVM: s390: Unwind kvm_arch_init() piece-by-piece() if a step fails")
[...]
> I guess someone has rebased one of the kvm trees and it had already been
> merged into another (like the kvm or kvm-arm trees).
Huh, that's worrying. I'm carrying the kvm-hw-enable-refactor branch
from the KVM tree, which I understood to be a stable branch[1], and
which I merged to avoid conflicts to be propagated everywhere.
Paolo, Sean: what is the *real* status of this branch?
M.
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/4d73d1b9-2c28-ab6a-2963-579bcc7a9e67@redhat.com
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists