From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 81DBB1990B7; Mon, 17 Mar 2025 11:08:33 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1742209713; cv=none; b=ZQGDLUQnA06Bm5C1qnEuEC+8CMduA8Zxxt9qhWz+yM7IrlnTi2+fLJGEde/2WnHW1N55OWziINOo/auS6+B0zHTAx/xUXnHRrDUajxqyaN3qUfoJOxFxRamrYQWi+dTcw0WvqE2h2QuALLFSJf82+rbAcxKAyUWdReBHuA2IvZ4= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1742209713; c=relaxed/simple; bh=vD80iwdiMAGzs4naZ/VRoajC/AaqYf0/78u4RZKwmKc=; h=Date:Message-ID:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=b5N9I3X+nXaaov5gPI1lCIiT7BoGAVy58wLmMNVTFwYBgDcUehD/uLH88Jp2tQUoLni5F0BWA+cQJmVLyTboxNJh+LLIUV16npqW1BzZ2o1XaALN+qYLlHOMnB9sRIHhwfNhAKTb4M8WMjLIkJcv9crEUAZXmum7VkbdGIr4V6s= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=RM4/S9vS; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="RM4/S9vS" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id ED487C4CEE3; Mon, 17 Mar 2025 11:08:32 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1742209713; bh=vD80iwdiMAGzs4naZ/VRoajC/AaqYf0/78u4RZKwmKc=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=RM4/S9vSKlLErShJGXGSJO3O7OGbCoHyj6fao5LlD32rs3aJaoIjPh6mr86sIYxsr HMxU73du7cVPFxd1jE/gxIV34MEtDXRf9uvE9zAQ8mTJMiTgOgzmmDTxvWP3mFKLwY EkC9mL4m4WvCdGbeSVPJZfnN66EIQAgc3pzZeeBGka74aQv1mCPNdM8o1Srwk3Y9fW GQx/cXx4OouQYGgxZADEchkIDE1AqRmWBQFM5Au4kaP1TbzboE0iONnCMXd+w0I947 PT6zaSY5gElvKZWBS2HhimvAj8slpYd2Sg6u83MALSPf5WWmR0k4jr0SV8TEXw8+Ip 0MLNf/mnVb1bA== Received: from sofa.misterjones.org ([185.219.108.64] helo=goblin-girl.misterjones.org) by disco-boy.misterjones.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.95) (envelope-from ) id 1tu8Kc-00EGSs-Py; Mon, 17 Mar 2025 11:08:30 +0000 Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2025 11:08:30 +0000 Message-ID: <86zfhjnccx.wl-maz@kernel.org> From: Marc Zyngier To: Stephen Rothwell , Oliver Upton Cc: Christoffer Dall , Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux Next Mailing List , Mark Rutland , Shameer Kolothum Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kvm-arm tree with the arm64 tree In-Reply-To: <20250317172102.55f7c4d9@canb.auug.org.au> References: <20250317172102.55f7c4d9@canb.auug.org.au> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) SEMI-EPG/1.14.7 (Harue) FLIM-LB/1.14.9 (=?UTF-8?B?R29qxY0=?=) APEL-LB/10.8 EasyPG/1.0.0 Emacs/29.4 (aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu) MULE/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-next@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 185.219.108.64 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: sfr@canb.auug.org.au, oliver.upton@linux.dev, cdall@cs.columbia.edu, catalin.marinas@arm.com, will@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-next@vger.kernel.org, mark.rutland@arm.com, shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: maz@kernel.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on disco-boy.misterjones.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Hi Stephen, On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 06:21:02 +0000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Hi all, > > Today's linux-next merge of the kvm-arm tree got a conflict in: > > arch/arm64/kvm/hypercalls.c > > between commit: > > d2c173acbf93 ("KVM: arm64: expose SMCCC_ARCH_WORKAROUND_4 to guests") > > from the arm64 tree and commit: > > c0000e58c74e ("KVM: arm64: Introduce KVM_REG_ARM_VENDOR_HYP_BMAP_2") > > 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 for resolving all 3 conflicts, which look good to me. Oliver, would you consider picking the following arm64 branches: - arm64/for-next/leaky-prefetcher - arm64/for-next/spectre-bhb-assume-vulnerable so that these conflicts are solved on our end? Thanks, M. -- Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.