[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZeqvVtdca_I6ooYe@linux.dev>
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2024 06:25:26 +0000
From: Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@...ux.dev>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc: Christoffer Dall <cdall@...columbia.edu>, Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kvm-arm tree with the arm64 tree
On Fri, Mar 08, 2024 at 12:54:33PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the kvm-arm tree got a conflict in:
>
> arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
>
> between commits:
>
> 203f2b95a882 ("arm64/fpsimd: Support FEAT_FPMR")
> 9cce9c6c2c3b ("arm64: mm: Handle LVA support as a CPU feature")
> 352b0395b505 ("arm64: Enable 52-bit virtual addressing for 4k and 16k granule configs")
> 2aea7b77aabc ("arm64: Use Signed/Unsigned enums for TGRAN{4,16,64} and VARange")
>
> from the arm64 tree and commit:
>
> da9af5071b25 ("arm64: cpufeature: Detect HCR_EL2.NV1 being RES0")
>
> from the kvm-arm tree.
>
> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary.
Thanks for reporting these Stephen. Fix looks good to me.
Catalin -- I think the conflicts are pretty simple here, but if we
wanted to do something it'd probably be easiest if you pulled my
kvm-arm64/feat_e2h0 branch. Looks like changes are coming from multiple
topic branches in your tree.
No strong opinions either way, but I plan on sending the kvmarm PR
tomorrow.
[*] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/oupton/linux.git/log/?h=kvm-arm64/feat_e2h0
--
Thanks,
Oliver
Powered by blists - more mailing lists