Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] KVM: PPC: Introduce KVM_CAP_PPC_HTM

On 20/07/2016 07:46, Michael Ellerman wrote:

Thanks.

Acked-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>

Or do you want me to merge this before Paul gets back?

No, this should be merged through the KVM tree.  Please Cc the KVM
maintainers before offering to apply a patch that formally belongs to
another tree.

I don't care if Paul merges the patch or Radim and I do, but we're
getting lots of unnecessary conflicts from patches that go through the
main architecture tree and that shouldn't really happen.  Please let's
keep some discipline, as I want to minimize the number of conflicts that
reach Linus (and 4.8 is going to be *bad* in this respect, with both PPC
and s390 having conflicts between the KVM and arch tree).

In particular this patch would indeed have a conflict, because you have

+#define KVM_CAP_PPC_HTM 129

but cap numbers 129 and 130 are already taken.  So whoever applies it
should bump the number to 131.

Paolo

Paolo Bonzini [off-list ref] writes:

On 20/07/2016 07:46, Michael Ellerman wrote:

quoted

Thanks.

Acked-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>

Or do you want me to merge this before Paul gets back?

No, this should be merged through the KVM tree.  Please Cc the KVM
maintainers before offering to apply a patch that formally belongs to
another tree.

Yeah OK. It was just an offer, because I know the Qemu side is blocked
until this goes in.

In particular this patch would indeed have a conflict, because you have

+#define KVM_CAP_PPC_HTM 129

but cap numbers 129 and 130 are already taken.  So whoever applies it
should bump the number to 131.

Yep, I know about KVM caps, I probably would have remembered to check
the KVM tree. At the very least it would have got caught in linux-next.

cheers

On 20/07/2016 08:30, Paolo Bonzini wrote:

In particular this patch would indeed have a conflict, because you have

+#define KVM_CAP_PPC_HTM 129

but cap numbers 129 and 130 are already taken.  So whoever applies it
should bump the number to 131.

Applied now, it's 132.

Paolo