linux-next: manual merge of the xen-two tree with the tip tree

linux-next: manual merge of the xen-two tree with the tip tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi Konrad,

Today's linux-next merge of the xen-two tree got a conflict in
arch/x86/pci/xen.c between commit 2c778651f73d ("x86: Cleanup the genirq
name space") from the tip tree and commit bf480d952bcf ("xen: events:
separate MSI PIRQ allocation from PIRQ binding to IRQ") from the xen-two
tree.  Commit f420e010edd8 ("xen: events: push set_irq_msi down into
xen_create_msi_irq") then moved the code modified by the tip tree commit
into drivers/xen/events.c.

I fixed it up (I think - see below) and can carry the fix as necessary (I
used the xen-two tree's version of arch/x86/pci/xen.c).
-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au

diff --git a/drivers/xen/events.c b/drivers/xen/events.c
index 62e5237..934a3b1 100644
--- a/drivers/xen/events.c
+++ b/drivers/xen/events.c
@@ -692,7 +692,7 @@ int xen_bind_pirq_msi_to_irq(struct pci_dev *dev, struct msi_desc *msidesc,
 				      handle_level_irq, name);
 
 	xen_irq_info_pirq_init(irq, 0, pirq, 0, vector, 0);
-	ret = set_irq_msi(irq, msidesc);
+	ret = irq_set_msi_desc(irq, msidesc);
 	if (ret < 0)
 		goto error_irq;
 out:
-- 
1.7.4.1

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the xen-two tree with the tip tree

[Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk]

On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 05:28:33PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Konrad,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the xen-two tree got a conflict in
> arch/x86/pci/xen.c between commit 2c778651f73d ("x86: Cleanup the genirq
> name space") from the tip tree and commit bf480d952bcf ("xen: events:
> separate MSI PIRQ allocation from PIRQ binding to IRQ") from the xen-two
> tree.  Commit f420e010edd8 ("xen: events: push set_irq_msi down into
> xen_create_msi_irq") then moved the code modified by the tip tree commit
> into drivers/xen/events.c.
> 
> I fixed it up (I think - see below) and can carry the fix as necessary (I
> used the xen-two tree's version of arch/x86/pci/xen.c).

Looks good. Thank you for following the trail down the patch changes.


> -- 
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/xen/events.c b/drivers/xen/events.c
> index 62e5237..934a3b1 100644
> --- a/drivers/xen/events.c
> +++ b/drivers/xen/events.c
> @@ -692,7 +692,7 @@ int xen_bind_pirq_msi_to_irq(struct pci_dev *dev, struct msi_desc *msidesc,
>  				      handle_level_irq, name);
>  
>  	xen_irq_info_pirq_init(irq, 0, pirq, 0, vector, 0);
> -	ret = set_irq_msi(irq, msidesc);
> +	ret = irq_set_msi_desc(irq, msidesc);
>  	if (ret < 0)
>  		goto error_irq;
>  out:
> -- 
> 1.7.4.1
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

linux-next: manual merge of the xen-two tree with the tip tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 839 bytes --]

Hi Konrad,

Today's linux-next merge of the xen-two tree got a conflict in
arch/x86/xen/time.c between commit 5584880e44e4 ("x86: xen: Sync the
wallclock when the system time is set") from the tip tree and commit
c9d76a24a289 ("xen/time: Don't leak interrupt name when offlining") from
the xen-two tree.

I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary (no action
is required).

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au

diff --cc arch/x86/xen/time.c
index 7a5671b,a690868..0000000
--- a/arch/x86/xen/time.c
+++ b/arch/x86/xen/time.c
@@@ -14,7 -14,7 +14,8 @@@
  #include <linux/kernel_stat.h>
  #include <linux/math64.h>
  #include <linux/gfp.h>
 +#include <linux/pvclock_gtod.h>
+ #include <linux/slab.h>
  
  #include <asm/pvclock.h>
  #include <asm/xen/hypervisor.h>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the xen-two tree with the tip tree

[Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk]

Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:

>Hi Konrad,
>
>Today's linux-next merge of the xen-two tree got a conflict in
>arch/x86/xen/time.c between commit 5584880e44e4 ("x86: xen: Sync the
>wallclock when the system time is set") from the tip tree and commit
>c9d76a24a289 ("xen/time: Don't leak interrupt name when offlining")
>from
>the xen-two tree.
>
>I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary (no action
>is required).

Yes.  Thanks for fixing it up. 
-- 
Sent from my Android phone. Please excuse my brevity.

linux-next: manual merge of the xen-two tree with the tip tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 611 bytes --]

Hi Konrad,

Today's linux-next merge of the xen-two tree got a conflict in
kernel/irq/manage.c between commit
dc5f219e88294b93009eef946251251ffffb6d60 ("genirq: Add
IRQF_FORCE_RESUME") from the tip tree and commit
c6c5596743c2a333a8e31b0247f44cd367484a5e ("genirq: Add
IRQF_FORCE_RESUME") from the xen-two tree.

Despite having the same Author time stamps, these commits are not quite the
same.  I used the version from the tip tree which kept the line:

		desc->status &= ~IRQ_SUSPENDED;

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the xen-two tree with the tip tree

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Thu, 10 Feb 2011, Stephen Rothwell wrote:

> Hi Konrad,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the xen-two tree got a conflict in
> kernel/irq/manage.c between commit
> dc5f219e88294b93009eef946251251ffffb6d60 ("genirq: Add
> IRQF_FORCE_RESUME") from the tip tree and commit
> c6c5596743c2a333a8e31b0247f44cd367484a5e ("genirq: Add
> IRQF_FORCE_RESUME") from the xen-two tree.
> 
> Despite having the same Author time stamps, these commits are not quite the
> same.  I used the version from the tip tree which kept the line:
> 
> 		desc->status &= ~IRQ_SUSPENDED;

That's the correct one. I fear I messed up, when I gave xen folks the
git url to pull from. I had the first version pushed out, and zapped
right away when I noticed the missing line. Then fixed it and
repushed. I should have checked git://..... which obviously had
already picked up the borked one and did not pick up the correct one
before xen folks pulled. Sorry about that.

Thanks,

	tglx

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the xen-two tree with the tip tree

[Ingo Molnar]

* Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:

> 
> 
> On Thu, 10 Feb 2011, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> 
> > Hi Konrad,
> > 
> > Today's linux-next merge of the xen-two tree got a conflict in
> > kernel/irq/manage.c between commit
> > dc5f219e88294b93009eef946251251ffffb6d60 ("genirq: Add
> > IRQF_FORCE_RESUME") from the tip tree and commit
> > c6c5596743c2a333a8e31b0247f44cd367484a5e ("genirq: Add
> > IRQF_FORCE_RESUME") from the xen-two tree.
> > 
> > Despite having the same Author time stamps, these commits are not quite the
> > same.  I used the version from the tip tree which kept the line:
> > 
> > 		desc->status &= ~IRQ_SUSPENDED;
> 
> That's the correct one. I fear I messed up, when I gave xen folks the
> git url to pull from. I had the first version pushed out, and zapped
> right away when I noticed the missing line. Then fixed it and
> repushed. I should have checked git://..... which obviously had
> already picked up the borked one and did not pick up the correct one
> before xen folks pulled. Sorry about that.

The resolution would be for the Xen tree to pull again and pick the new commit's 
content as the conflict resolution result. That will resolve the linux-next conflict 
as well.

Thanks,

	Ingo

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the xen-two tree with the tip tree

[Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk]

On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 01:24:23PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > 
> > On Thu, 10 Feb 2011, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > 
> > > Hi Konrad,
> > > 
> > > Today's linux-next merge of the xen-two tree got a conflict in
> > > kernel/irq/manage.c between commit
> > > dc5f219e88294b93009eef946251251ffffb6d60 ("genirq: Add
> > > IRQF_FORCE_RESUME") from the tip tree and commit
> > > c6c5596743c2a333a8e31b0247f44cd367484a5e ("genirq: Add
> > > IRQF_FORCE_RESUME") from the xen-two tree.
> > > 
> > > Despite having the same Author time stamps, these commits are not quite the
> > > same.  I used the version from the tip tree which kept the line:
> > > 
> > > 		desc->status &= ~IRQ_SUSPENDED;
> > 
> > That's the correct one. I fear I messed up, when I gave xen folks the
> > git url to pull from. I had the first version pushed out, and zapped
> > right away when I noticed the missing line. Then fixed it and
> > repushed. I should have checked git://..... which obviously had
> > already picked up the borked one and did not pick up the correct one
> > before xen folks pulled. Sorry about that.
> 
> The resolution would be for the Xen tree to pull again and pick the new commit's 
> content as the conflict resolution result. That will resolve the linux-next conflict 
> as well.

Should be all fixed now.