[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZnYIQ9swzOjU1DuU@google.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2024 16:09:55 -0700
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Wei Wang <wei.w.wang@...el.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kvm-x86 tree with the origin tree
On Fri, Jun 21, 2024, Mark Brown wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the kvm-x86 tree got a conflict in:
>
> arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
>
> between commit:
>
> f3ced000a2df5 ("KVM: x86: Always sync PIR to IRR prior to scanning I/O APIC routes")
>
> from the origin tree and commit:
>
> aebed32e4985a ("KVM: x86: Introduce kvm_x86_call() to simplify static calls of kvm_x86_ops")
>
> from the kvm-x86 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.
Thanks for the heads up! This (and possibily similar conflicts in the future)
is expected. I'll rebase kvm-x86/static_calls next week to resolve the conflict
in kvm-x86/next.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists