From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1751438AbeA2ECU (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Sun, 28 Jan 2018 23:02:20 -0500
Received: from ozlabs.org ([103.22.144.67]:56507 "EHLO ozlabs.org"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1751169AbeA2ECT (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Sun, 28 Jan 2018 23:02:19 -0500
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 15:02:08 +1100
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Radim =?UTF-8?B?S3LEjW3DocWZ?= <rkrcmar@redhat.com>,
        KVM <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw@amazon.co.uk>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@amd.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kvm tree with Linus' tree
Message-ID: <20180129150208.4073e973@canb.auug.org.au>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1801171353100.1777@nanos>
References: <20180117144817.1cba736f@canb.auug.org.au>
        <alpine.DEB.2.20.1801171243230.1777@nanos>
        <b54c26df-cee2-a930-7e34-47701e852f9e@redhat.com>
        <alpine.DEB.2.20.1801171321580.1777@nanos>
        <20180117234326.24a2c0c3@canb.auug.org.au>
        <alpine.DEB.2.20.1801171353100.1777@nanos>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Hi all,

On Wed, 17 Jan 2018 13:53:26 +0100 (CET) Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 17 Jan 2018, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > On Wed, 17 Jan 2018 13:23:17 +0100 (CET) Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:  
> > > No. Keep it and lets next time coordinate the relevant bits and pieces
> > > better. I reserve that bit 20 and let Linus sort out the trivial conflict
> > > when merging the stuff.  
> > 
> > I just picked that bit 20 when resolving the conflict.  The original patch used
> > bit 11, so the resolution could use any other sensible bit.  
> 
> 20 is fine :)

So maybe this (X86_FEATURE_SEV) should be fixed up to use "( 7*32+20)" in
the kvm tree?  (Just a followup patch changing the value/position in the
file would be fine).
-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell