diff for duplicates of <7305F50A-8E77-4E88-8EB8-4046A7E94DF9@suse.de>

diff --git a/a/1.txt b/N1/1.txt
index 26dc782..2c97437 100644
--- a/a/1.txt
+++ b/N1/1.txt
@@ -5,31 +5,39 @@ On 07.07.2012, at 00:33, Caraman Mihai Claudiu-B02008 wrote:
 >> From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt [mailto:benh@kernel.crashing.org]
 >> Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2012 1:26 AM
 >> To: Alexander Graf
->> Cc: Caraman Mihai Claudiu-B02008; <kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org>; KVM list;
+>> Cc: Caraman Mihai Claudiu-B02008; <kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org>; KVM =
+list;
 >> linuxppc-dev; qemu-ppc@nongnu.org List
->> Subject: Re: [Qemu-ppc] [RFC PATCH 12/17] PowerPC: booke64: Add DO_KVM
+>> Subject: Re: [Qemu-ppc] [RFC PATCH 12/17] PowerPC: booke64: Add =
+DO_KVM
 >> kernel hooks
->> 
+>>=20
 >> On Wed, 2012-07-04 at 16:29 +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
->> 
+>>=20
 >>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_KVM_BOOKE_HV
->>>> +#define KVM_BOOKE_HV_MFSPR(reg, spr)				\
+>>>> +#define KVM_BOOKE_HV_MFSPR(reg, spr)				=
+\
 >>>> +	BEGIN_FTR_SECTION					\
 >>>> +		mfspr	reg, spr;			  	\
 >>>> +	END_FTR_SECTION_IFSET(CPU_FTR_EMB_HV)
 >>>> +#else
 >>>> +#define KVM_BOOKE_HV_MFSPR(reg, spr)
 >>>> +#endif
->>> 
->>> Bleks - this is ugly. Do we really need to open-code the #ifdef here?
->>> Can't the feature section code determine that the feature is disabled
+>>>=20
+>>> Bleks - this is ugly. Do we really need to open-code the #ifdef =
+here?
+>>> Can't the feature section code determine that the feature is =
+disabled
 >>> and just always not include the code?
->> 
->> You can't but in any case I don't see the point of the conditional here,
->> we'll eventually have to load srr1 no ? We can move the load up to here
->> in all cases or can't we ? 
-> 
-> I like the idea, but there is a problem with addition macros which may clobber
+>>=20
+>> You can't but in any case I don't see the point of the conditional =
+here,
+>> we'll eventually have to load srr1 no ? We can move the load up to =
+here
+>> in all cases or can't we ?=20
+>=20
+> I like the idea, but there is a problem with addition macros which may =
+clobber
 > r11 and PROLOG_ADDITION_MASKABLE_GEN is such a case.
 
 Mike -v please :)
diff --git a/a/content_digest b/N1/content_digest
index 07b97a7..5303a54 100644
--- a/a/content_digest
+++ b/N1/content_digest
@@ -26,11 +26,10 @@
   "To\0Caraman Mihai Claudiu-B02008 <B02008\@freescale.com>\0"
 ]
 [
-  "Cc\0Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh\@kernel.crashing.org>",
-  " <kvm-ppc\@vger.kernel.org> <kvm-ppc\@vger.kernel.org>",
-  " KVM list <kvm\@vger.kernel.org>",
+  "Cc\0qemu-ppc\@nongnu.org List <qemu-ppc\@nongnu.org>",
   " linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev\@lists.ozlabs.org>",
-  " qemu-ppc\@nongnu.org List <qemu-ppc\@nongnu.org>\0"
+  " KVM list <kvm\@vger.kernel.org>",
+  " <kvm-ppc\@vger.kernel.org> <kvm-ppc\@vger.kernel.org>\0"
 ]
 [
   "\0000:1\0"
@@ -46,31 +45,39 @@
   ">> From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt [mailto:benh\@kernel.crashing.org]\n",
   ">> Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2012 1:26 AM\n",
   ">> To: Alexander Graf\n",
-  ">> Cc: Caraman Mihai Claudiu-B02008; <kvm-ppc\@vger.kernel.org>; KVM list;\n",
+  ">> Cc: Caraman Mihai Claudiu-B02008; <kvm-ppc\@vger.kernel.org>; KVM =\n",
+  "list;\n",
   ">> linuxppc-dev; qemu-ppc\@nongnu.org List\n",
-  ">> Subject: Re: [Qemu-ppc] [RFC PATCH 12/17] PowerPC: booke64: Add DO_KVM\n",
+  ">> Subject: Re: [Qemu-ppc] [RFC PATCH 12/17] PowerPC: booke64: Add =\n",
+  "DO_KVM\n",
   ">> kernel hooks\n",
-  ">> \n",
+  ">>=20\n",
   ">> On Wed, 2012-07-04 at 16:29 +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:\n",
-  ">> \n",
+  ">>=20\n",
   ">>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_KVM_BOOKE_HV\n",
-  ">>>> +#define KVM_BOOKE_HV_MFSPR(reg, spr)\t\t\t\t\\\n",
+  ">>>> +#define KVM_BOOKE_HV_MFSPR(reg, spr)\t\t\t\t=\n",
+  "\\\n",
   ">>>> +\tBEGIN_FTR_SECTION\t\t\t\t\t\\\n",
   ">>>> +\t\tmfspr\treg, spr;\t\t\t  \t\\\n",
   ">>>> +\tEND_FTR_SECTION_IFSET(CPU_FTR_EMB_HV)\n",
   ">>>> +#else\n",
   ">>>> +#define KVM_BOOKE_HV_MFSPR(reg, spr)\n",
   ">>>> +#endif\n",
-  ">>> \n",
-  ">>> Bleks - this is ugly. Do we really need to open-code the #ifdef here?\n",
-  ">>> Can't the feature section code determine that the feature is disabled\n",
+  ">>>=20\n",
+  ">>> Bleks - this is ugly. Do we really need to open-code the #ifdef =\n",
+  "here?\n",
+  ">>> Can't the feature section code determine that the feature is =\n",
+  "disabled\n",
   ">>> and just always not include the code?\n",
-  ">> \n",
-  ">> You can't but in any case I don't see the point of the conditional here,\n",
-  ">> we'll eventually have to load srr1 no ? We can move the load up to here\n",
-  ">> in all cases or can't we ? \n",
-  "> \n",
-  "> I like the idea, but there is a problem with addition macros which may clobber\n",
+  ">>=20\n",
+  ">> You can't but in any case I don't see the point of the conditional =\n",
+  "here,\n",
+  ">> we'll eventually have to load srr1 no ? We can move the load up to =\n",
+  "here\n",
+  ">> in all cases or can't we ?=20\n",
+  ">=20\n",
+  "> I like the idea, but there is a problem with addition macros which may =\n",
+  "clobber\n",
   "> r11 and PROLOG_ADDITION_MASKABLE_GEN is such a case.\n",
   "\n",
   "Mike -v please :)\n",
@@ -79,4 +86,4 @@
   "Alex"
 ]
 
-b55624aabae61f5e8438e7f8334ff00d0f7a861c8639f614917d8dee62c93f32
+14022ab1d91f7e0159d40fcffb783e4e8f0e8267e195aac0cd5096620326e715
