From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx2.suse.de (cantor2.suse.de [195.135.220.15]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7FE101A06D7 for ; Fri, 30 May 2014 19:44:58 +1000 (EST) Message-ID: <53885315.2070004@suse.de> Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 11:44:53 +0200 From: Alexander Graf MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Michael Neuling Subject: Re: powerpc/pseries: Use new defines when calling h_set_mode References: <1401106626-13130-1-git-send-email-paulus@samba.org> <1401106626-13130-4-git-send-email-paulus@samba.org> <5385E620.5090703@suse.de> <1401342462.4116.4.camel@ale.ozlabs.ibm.com> <1401344549.4116.8.camel@ale.ozlabs.ibm.com> <1401349547.4116.19.camel@ale.ozlabs.ibm.com> <1401440207.29324.10.camel@concordia> <1401441046.13479.2.camel@ale.ozlabs.ibm.com> <53884BC6.8030904@suse.de> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Cc: linuxppc-dev , Paul Mackerras , "kvm@vger.kernel.org" , kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On 30.05.14 11:44, Michael Neuling wrote: > > > >>> > >>> Which header are these coming from, and why aren't we including > it? And is it > >>> going to still build with CONFIG_KVM=n? > >> > >> From include/asm/hvcall.h in the h_set_mode patch set I sent before. > >> > >> And yes it compiles with CONFIG_KVM=n fine. > > > > > > Please split that patch into one that adds the definitions and one > that changes the KVM code to use those definitions. Both Ben and me > can then apply the definition patch and our respective tree patch. > > > > Why don't you just take the original h_set_mode patch and I'll repost > this cleanup later to ben when yours is upstream. This cleanup patch > is not critical to anything and it avoid more churn. > That works too, but please keep in mind that my path to upstream is much longer than what you're used to ;). Alex