[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20231101133604.4edad0b3@canb.auug.org.au>
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2023 13:36:04 +1100
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc: Christoffer Dall <cdall@...columbia.edu>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@...ux.dev>,
KVM <kvm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kvm-arm tree with the arm64
tree
Hi all,
On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 12:30:17 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the kvm-arm tree got a conflict in:
>
> arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
>
> between commit:
>
> d8569fba1385 ("arm64: kvm: Use cpus_have_final_cap() explicitly")
>
> from the arm64 tree and commit:
>
> ef150908b6bd ("KVM: arm64: Add generic check for system-supported vCPU features")
>
> from the kvm-arm tree.
>
> I fixed it up (I just used the latter) 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.
This is now a conflict between the kvm tree and the arm64 tree.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists