linux-next: manual merge of the vhost tree with the pm tree

linux-next: manual merge of the vhost tree with the pm tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 762 bytes --]

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the vhost tree got a conflict in:

  drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c

between commit:

  fa583f71a99c ("ACPI: processor_idle: Skip dummy wait if kernel is in guest")

from the pm tree and commit:

  a04c0533b07c ("ACPI: disable extra P_LVLx access on KVM")

from the vhost tree.

I fixed it up (I just used the pm tree version) 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.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vhost tree with the pm tree

[Yin Fengwei]

Hi,

On 2019/10/29 下午12:19, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the vhost tree got a conflict in:
> 
>    drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>    fa583f71a99c ("ACPI: processor_idle: Skip dummy wait if kernel is in guest")
> 
> from the pm tree and commit:
> 
>    a04c0533b07c ("ACPI: disable extra P_LVLx access on KVM")
Sorry for this. I only check the linus tree and didn't notice there is
this patch in pm tree.

BTW, from this patch (a04c0533b07c), it has todo to extend the
hypervisor not only for kvm. So I suppose it's time to add one more:
ACRN. Thanks.

Regards
Yin, Fengwei

> 
> from the vhost tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (I just used the pm tree version) 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.
> 

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vhost tree with the pm tree

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Tuesday, October 29, 2019 5:19:28 AM CET Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the vhost tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   fa583f71a99c ("ACPI: processor_idle: Skip dummy wait if kernel is in guest")
> 
> from the pm tree and commit:
> 
>   a04c0533b07c ("ACPI: disable extra P_LVLx access on KVM")

Well, if this touches code under drivers/acpi/, it should have been CCed to
linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, but I don't recall seeing it.

> from the vhost tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (I just used the pm tree version) 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.
> 
> 

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vhost tree with the pm tree

[Michael S. Tsirkin]

On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 11:13:57PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 29, 2019 5:19:28 AM CET Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > Today's linux-next merge of the vhost tree got a conflict in:
> > 
> >   drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c
> > 
> > between commit:
> > 
> >   fa583f71a99c ("ACPI: processor_idle: Skip dummy wait if kernel is in guest")
> > 
> > from the pm tree and commit:
> > 
> >   a04c0533b07c ("ACPI: disable extra P_LVLx access on KVM")
> 
> Well, if this touches code under drivers/acpi/, it should have been CCed to
> linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, but I don't recall seeing it.

It's an old RFC, posted a couple of years ago.
I guess I can drop it for now.


> > from the vhost tree.
> > 
> > I fixed it up (I just used the pm tree version) 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.
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
>