Re: linux-next: manual merge of the iommufd tree with the iommu tree

[Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>]

On 2023/10/25 20:17, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 08:16:16PM +0800, Baolu Lu wrote:
>> On 2023/10/25 20:12, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 03:34:55PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> Today's linux-next merge of the iommufd tree got a conflict in:
>>>>
>>>>     drivers/iommu/intel/pasid.c
>>>>
>>>> between commit:
>>>>
>>>>     c61c255e114c ("iommu/vt-d: Remove unused function")
>>>>
>>>> from the iommu tree and commits:
>>>>
>>>>     f35f22cc760e ("iommu/vt-d: Access/Dirty bit support for SS domains")
>>>>     cbf8b441ea08 ("iommu/vt-d: Add helper to setup pasid nested translation")
>>>>
>>>> from the iommufd tree.
>>>>
>>>> I fixed it up (the latter added a use of the function removed by
>>>> the former, so I just used the latter) and can carry the fix as
>>>> necessary. This is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any
>>>> non trivial
>>> Intel folks, this is not nice 🙁 Why was the first commit done at all
>>> if the nesting series needs this?
>> It's my fault. My apologies for not realizing that the helper would
>> still be used by the nesting translation series. I will be more careful
>> in the future.
> Can you send a revert of c61c255e114c ASAP to Joerg please?

Sure!

Best regards,
baolu