linux-next: manual merge of the kvm-x86 tree with the origin tree

linux-next: manual merge of the kvm-x86 tree with the origin tree

[Mark Brown]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 880 bytes --]

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the kvm-x86 tree got a conflict in:

  arch/x86/kvm/x86.c

between commit:

  f3ced000a2df5 ("KVM: x86: Always sync PIR to IRR prior to scanning I/O APIC routes")

from the origin tree and commit:

  aebed32e4985a ("KVM: x86: Introduce kvm_x86_call() to simplify static calls of kvm_x86_ops")

from the kvm-x86 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.

diff --cc arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
index ba0ad76f53bcc,c13bae3e8dfbc..0000000000000
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c

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

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kvm-x86 tree with the origin tree

[Sean Christopherson]

On Fri, Jun 21, 2024, Mark Brown wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the kvm-x86 tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   f3ced000a2df5 ("KVM: x86: Always sync PIR to IRR prior to scanning I/O APIC routes")
> 
> from the origin tree and commit:
> 
>   aebed32e4985a ("KVM: x86: Introduce kvm_x86_call() to simplify static calls of kvm_x86_ops")
> 
> from the kvm-x86 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 the heads up!  This (and possibily similar conflicts in the future)
is expected.  I'll rebase kvm-x86/static_calls next week to resolve the conflict
in kvm-x86/next.