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, 1 Jun 2018 09:23:25 +0100 Message-ID: References: <20180601162320.1ef18d8e@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20180601162320.1ef18d8e@canb.auug.org.au> Content-Language: en-GB Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Stephen Rothwell , Christoffer Dall , Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon Cc: Linux-Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Dave Martin List-Id: linux-next.vger.kernel.org Hi Stephen, On 01/06/18 07:23, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Today's linux-next merge of the kvm-arm tree got conflicts in: > > arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/switch.c > > between commit: > > 55e3748e8902 ("arm64: KVM: Add ARCH_WORKAROUND_2 support for > guests") > > from the arm64 tree and commits: > > fa89d31c5306 ("KVM: arm64: Repurpose vcpu_arch.debug_flags for > general-purpose flags") e6b673b741ea ("KVM: arm64: Optimise FPSIMD > handling to reduce guest/host thrashing") > > from the kvm-arm tree. > > I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This > is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non > trivial conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer > when your tree is submitted for merging. You may also want to > consider cooperating with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to > minimise any particularly complex conflicts. > All three resolutions look correct to me. Thanks, M. -- Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...