From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paolo Bonzini Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kvm tree with the arm64 tree Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2018 19:08:51 +0200 Message-ID: References: <20180604165754.6ae09612@canb.auug.org.au> <20180604073319.GF22983@e103592.cambridge.arm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20180604073319.GF22983@e103592.cambridge.arm.com> Content-Language: en-US Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Dave Martin , Stephen Rothwell Cc: =?UTF-8?B?UmFkaW0gS3LEjW3DocWZ?= , KVM , Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , Linux-Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Marc Zyngier List-Id: linux-next.vger.kernel.org On 04/06/2018 09:33, Dave Martin wrote: > On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 04:57:54PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> Today's linux-next merge of the kvm tree got a conflict in: >> >> arch/arm64/include/asm/processor.h >> >> between commit: >> >> 94b07c1f8c39 ("arm64: signal: Report signal frame size to userspace via auxv") >> >> from the arm64 tree and commit: >> >> 9a6e594869b2 ("arm64/sve: Move sve_pffr() to fpsimd.h and make inline") >> >> from the kvm 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. > > The resolution looks fine here, thanks. Looks good, but it would have been even better if the ARM64 tree provided a topic branch and the kvm/arm tree pulled it. Thanks, Paolo > ---Dave > >> >> -- >> Cheers, >> Stephen Rothwell >> >> diff --cc arch/arm64/include/asm/processor.h >> index 65ab83e8926e,c99e657fdd57..000000000000 >> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/processor.h >> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/processor.h >> @@@ -246,9 -246,17 +248,20 @@@ void cpu_enable_pan(const struct arm64_ >> void cpu_enable_cache_maint_trap(const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *__unused); >> void cpu_clear_disr(const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *__unused); >> >> +extern unsigned long __ro_after_init signal_minsigstksz; /* sigframe size */ >> +extern void __init minsigstksz_setup(void); >> + >> + /* >> + * Not at the top of the file due to a direct #include cycle between >> + * and . Deferring this #include >> + * ensures that contents of processor.h are visible to fpsimd.h even if >> + * processor.h is included first. >> + * >> + * These prctl helpers are the only things in this file that require >> + * fpsimd.h. The core code expects them to be in this header. >> + */ >> + #include >> + >> /* Userspace interface for PR_SVE_{SET,GET}_VL prctl()s: */ >> #define SVE_SET_VL(arg) sve_set_current_vl(arg) >> #define SVE_GET_VL() sve_get_current_vl() > >