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

From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@rothwell.id.au>
To: Nadav Amit <namit@vmware.com>
Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
	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 14:58:05 +1000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210422145805.53ca36be@elm.ozlabs.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <142AD46E-6B41-49F3-90C1-624649A20764@vmware.com>

Hi Nadav,

On Thu, 22 Apr 2021 04:45:38 +0000 Nadav Amit <namit@vmware.com> wrote:
>
> >  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.

It came from another patch that did not cause a conflict but ended up
in the diff output.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell