diff for duplicates of <300B73AA675FCE4A93EB4FC1D42459FF15CE0B@039-SN2MPN1-013.039d.mgd.msft.net>

diff --git a/a/1.txt b/N1/1.txt
index 13b7de1..9366d20 100644
--- a/a/1.txt
+++ b/N1/1.txt
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 > -----Original Message-----
 > From: Linuxppc-dev [mailto:linuxppc-dev-
-> bounces+mihai.caraman=freescale.com@lists.ozlabs.org] On Behalf Of
+> bounces+mihai.caraman=3Dfreescale.com@lists.ozlabs.org] On Behalf Of
 > Benjamin Herrenschmidt
 > Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2012 1:21 AM
 > To: Alexander Graf
@@ -8,7 +8,7 @@
 > KVM list; <kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org>
 > Subject: Re: [Qemu-ppc] [RFC PATCH 09/17] KVM: PPC64: booke: Hard disable
 > interrupts when entering guest
-> 
+>=20
 > On Wed, 2012-07-04 at 16:14 +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
 > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_64BIT
 > > > +#define _hard_irq_disable() hard_irq_disable()
@@ -18,26 +18,28 @@
 > >
 > > So you only swap out the disable bit, but not the enable one? Ben,
 > > would this work out?
-> 
+>=20
 > hard_irq_disable() both soft and hard disable. local_irq_enable() will
 > see that irqs are hard disabled and will hard enable.
-> 
+>=20
 > However, there's a nastier discrepancy above: local_irq_disable will
 > properly inform lockdep that we are disabling, while hard_irq_disable
 > won't.
-> 
+>=20
 > Arguably we might want to fix that inside hard_irq_disable() itself...
-> 
+>=20
 > Also you need to be careful. If you are coming with interrupts already
 > enabled, it's fine, but if you have interrupts soft disabled, then
 > you hard disable, before you enter the guest you probably want to
 > check if anything was left "pending" and cancel the entering of the
 > guest if that is the case.
 
-On which cases I can find interrupts soft disabled if I call local_irq_enable()
-ahead? Can this happen when my kernel task is scheduled? 
+On which cases I can find interrupts soft disabled if I call local_irq_enab=
+le()
+ahead? Can this happen when my kernel task is scheduled?=20
 
-I presume that if I call hard_irq_disable() before entering the guest, a guest exit
+I presume that if I call hard_irq_disable() before entering the guest, a gu=
+est exit
 will find interrupts soft disabled.
 
 -Mike
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/a/content_digest b/N1/content_digest
index ff1936d..3eb9b4a 100644
--- a/a/content_digest
+++ b/N1/content_digest
@@ -24,10 +24,10 @@
   " Alexander Graf <agraf\@suse.de>\0"
 ]
 [
-  "Cc\0qemu-ppc\@nongnu.org List <qemu-ppc\@nongnu.org>",
-  " linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev\@lists.ozlabs.org>",
-  " KVM list <kvm\@vger.kernel.org>",
-  " <kvm-ppc\@vger.kernel.org> <kvm-ppc\@vger.kernel.org>\0"
+  "Cc\0linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev\@lists.ozlabs.org>",
+  " qemu-ppc\@nongnu.org List <qemu-ppc\@nongnu.org>",
+  " <kvm-ppc\@vger.kernel.org> <kvm-ppc\@vger.kernel.org>",
+  " KVM list <kvm\@vger.kernel.org>\0"
 ]
 [
   "\0000:1\0"
@@ -38,7 +38,7 @@
 [
   "> -----Original Message-----\n",
   "> From: Linuxppc-dev [mailto:linuxppc-dev-\n",
-  "> bounces+mihai.caraman=freescale.com\@lists.ozlabs.org] On Behalf Of\n",
+  "> bounces+mihai.caraman=3Dfreescale.com\@lists.ozlabs.org] On Behalf Of\n",
   "> Benjamin Herrenschmidt\n",
   "> Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2012 1:21 AM\n",
   "> To: Alexander Graf\n",
@@ -46,7 +46,7 @@
   "> KVM list; <kvm-ppc\@vger.kernel.org>\n",
   "> Subject: Re: [Qemu-ppc] [RFC PATCH 09/17] KVM: PPC64: booke: Hard disable\n",
   "> interrupts when entering guest\n",
-  "> \n",
+  ">=20\n",
   "> On Wed, 2012-07-04 at 16:14 +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:\n",
   "> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_64BIT\n",
   "> > > +#define _hard_irq_disable() hard_irq_disable()\n",
@@ -56,29 +56,31 @@
   "> >\n",
   "> > So you only swap out the disable bit, but not the enable one? Ben,\n",
   "> > would this work out?\n",
-  "> \n",
+  ">=20\n",
   "> hard_irq_disable() both soft and hard disable. local_irq_enable() will\n",
   "> see that irqs are hard disabled and will hard enable.\n",
-  "> \n",
+  ">=20\n",
   "> However, there's a nastier discrepancy above: local_irq_disable will\n",
   "> properly inform lockdep that we are disabling, while hard_irq_disable\n",
   "> won't.\n",
-  "> \n",
+  ">=20\n",
   "> Arguably we might want to fix that inside hard_irq_disable() itself...\n",
-  "> \n",
+  ">=20\n",
   "> Also you need to be careful. If you are coming with interrupts already\n",
   "> enabled, it's fine, but if you have interrupts soft disabled, then\n",
   "> you hard disable, before you enter the guest you probably want to\n",
   "> check if anything was left \"pending\" and cancel the entering of the\n",
   "> guest if that is the case.\n",
   "\n",
-  "On which cases I can find interrupts soft disabled if I call local_irq_enable()\n",
-  "ahead? Can this happen when my kernel task is scheduled? \n",
+  "On which cases I can find interrupts soft disabled if I call local_irq_enab=\n",
+  "le()\n",
+  "ahead? Can this happen when my kernel task is scheduled?=20\n",
   "\n",
-  "I presume that if I call hard_irq_disable() before entering the guest, a guest exit\n",
+  "I presume that if I call hard_irq_disable() before entering the guest, a gu=\n",
+  "est exit\n",
   "will find interrupts soft disabled.\n",
   "\n",
   "-Mike"
 ]
 
-a2156437bb02a0bb00df23a9bd2f0afb55b0d885927a90d5bd55ccddacda2769
+eb442b30a7f6ecceca28f6aa4fc44d7ab63338fd3f221f1f0c28e254b020f68a
