From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paolo Bonzini Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kvm tree with Linus' tree Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 11:35:29 +0100 Message-ID: References: <20180117144817.1cba736f@canb.auug.org.au> <20180117234326.24a2c0c3@canb.auug.org.au> <20180129150208.4073e973@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20180129150208.4073e973@canb.auug.org.au> Content-Language: en-US Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: Thomas Gleixner , =?UTF-8?B?UmFkaW0gS3LEjW3DocWZ?= , KVM , Linux-Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , David Woodhouse , Ingo Molnar , Brijesh Singh List-Id: linux-next.vger.kernel.org On 29/01/2018 05:02, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > On Wed, 17 Jan 2018 13:53:26 +0100 (CET) Thomas Gleixner wrote: >> >> On Wed, 17 Jan 2018, Stephen Rothwell wrote: >>> On Wed, 17 Jan 2018 13:23:17 +0100 (CET) Thomas Gleixner wrote: >>>> No. Keep it and lets next time coordinate the relevant bits and pieces >>>> better. I reserve that bit 20 and let Linus sort out the trivial conflict >>>> when merging the stuff. >>> >>> I just picked that bit 20 when resolving the conflict. The original patch used >>> bit 11, so the resolution could use any other sensible bit. >> >> 20 is fine :) > > So maybe this (X86_FEATURE_SEV) should be fixed up to use "( 7*32+20)" in > the kvm tree? (Just a followup patch changing the value/position in the > file would be fine). Yes, we'll fix this and the other conflicts with Linus's tree before sending out the pull request. Paolo