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

From: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Cc: Christoffer Dall <cdall@cs.columbia.edu>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	Alexandru Elisei <alexandru.elisei@arm.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>,
	Oliver Upton <oupton@google.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kvm-arm tree with the arm64 tree
Date: Wed, 04 May 2022 08:06:07 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <877d71ixpc.wl-maz@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220504143529.4060ab27@canb.auug.org.au>

On Wed, 04 May 2022 05:35:29 +0100,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> 
> [1  <text/plain; US-ASCII (quoted-printable)>]
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the kvm-arm tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   0b12620fddb8 ("KVM: arm64: Treat ESR_EL2 as a 64-bit register")
> 
> from the arm64 tree and commits:
> 
>   e65197666773 ("KVM: arm64: Wire up CP15 feature registers to their AArch64 equivalents")
>   9369bc5c5e35 ("KVM: arm64: Plumb cp10 ID traps through the AArch64 sysreg handler")
> 
> 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.

Thanks Stephen.

I've added a fix to address the 'u32 esr' instances that were
introduced by Oliver's series. Catalin, do you want me to merge the
ESR series in the kvm-arm tree in order to avoid the minor conflict?

Cheers,

	M.

-- 
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.