Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kvm-arm tree with the arm64 tree

From: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc: "Stephen Rothwell" <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
	"Christoffer Dall" <cdall@cs.columbia.edu>,
	"Catalin Marinas" <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	"Will Deacon" <will.deacon@arm.com>,
	"Linux-Next Mailing List" <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>,
	"Linux Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"Suzuki K Poulose" <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
	"Radim Krčmář" <rkrcmar@redhat.com>, KVM <kvm@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kvm-arm tree with the arm64 tree
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2018 10:33:42 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <86d0uhpcax.wl-marc.zyngier@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <84803922-9430-43d2-7db6-e9c0dd02da6a@redhat.com>

On Fri, 17 Aug 2018 09:32:55 +0100,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> On 16/08/2018 02:15, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> >>  -#define ARM64_HAS_STAGE2_FWB			31
> >>  +#define ARM64_MISMATCHED_CACHE_TYPE		31
> >> ++#define ARM64_HAS_STAGE2_FWB			32
> >>   
> >> --#define ARM64_NCAPS				32
> >> ++#define ARM64_NCAPS				33
> >>   
> >>   #endif /* __ASM_CPUCAPS_H */
> > This is now a conflict between Linus' tree and the kvm-arm tree (and
> > presumably soon the kvm tree).
> 
> This should have been sorted out using topic branches.  I'll handle it
> myself by splitting the pull request in two, but please try to organize
> better the changes in non-KVM-specific arch/arm and arch/arm64 files.

We've dealt with that kind of trivial conflicts in the past without
requiring topic branches (cpucaps.h has always been a popular place),
and I always assumed that this was acceptable. I must have
misunderstood something here.

Next time, I'll direct the architecture-specific code via the arm64
tree directly.

Thanks,

	M.

-- 
Jazz is not dead, it just smell funny.