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