Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kvm tree with the tip tree

From: Nadav Amit <namit@vmware.com>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, KVM <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>,
	Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kvm tree with the tip tree
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2021 04:45:38 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <142AD46E-6B41-49F3-90C1-624649A20764@vmware.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210422143056.62a3fee4@canb.auug.org.au>

> On Apr 21, 2021, at 9:30 PM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the kvm tree got a conflict in:
> 
>  arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>  4ce94eabac16 ("x86/mm/tlb: Flush remote and local TLBs concurrently")
> 
> from the tip tree and commit:
> 
>  2b519b5797d4 ("x86/kvm: Don't bother __pv_cpu_mask when !CONFIG_SMP")
> 
> from the kvm tree.

Thank you and sorry for that.

>  static void __init kvm_smp_prepare_boot_cpu(void)
>  {
>  	/*
> @@@ -655,15 -668,9 +673,9 @@@ static void __init kvm_guest_init(void
> 
>  	if (kvm_para_has_feature(KVM_FEATURE_STEAL_TIME)) {
>  		has_steal_clock = 1;
> -		pv_ops.time.steal_clock = kvm_steal_clock;
> +		static_call_update(pv_steal_clock, kvm_steal_clock);

I do not understand how this line ended in the merge fix though.

Not that it is correct or wrong, but it is not part of either of
these 2 patches AFAIK.