From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Marc Zyngier Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kvm-arm tree with the arm64 tree Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2018 10:33:42 +0100 Message-ID: <86d0uhpcax.wl-marc.zyngier@arm.com> References: <20180723144641.62b2b226@canb.auug.org.au> <20180816101515.24d0b49f@canb.auug.org.au> <84803922-9430-43d2-7db6-e9c0dd02da6a@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Return-path: In-Reply-To: <84803922-9430-43d2-7db6-e9c0dd02da6a@redhat.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Paolo Bonzini Cc: Stephen Rothwell , Christoffer Dall , Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , Linux-Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Suzuki K Poulose , Radim =?UTF-8?B?S3LEjW3DocWZ?= , KVM List-Id: linux-next.vger.kernel.org On Fri, 17 Aug 2018 09:32:55 +0100, Paolo Bonzini 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.