Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the kvm tree got a conflict in:
include/uapi/linux/kvm.h
between commit:
9bb4a6f38fd4 ("KVM: PPC: Book3S HV: Add KVM_CAP_PPC_RPT_INVALIDATE capability")
from the powerpc tree and commits:
644f706719f0 ("KVM: x86: hyper-v: Introduce KVM_CAP_HYPERV_ENFORCE_CPUID")
6dba94035203 ("KVM: x86: Introduce KVM_GET_SREGS2 / KVM_SET_SREGS2")
0dbb11230437 ("KVM: X86: Introduce KVM_HC_MAP_GPA_RANGE hypercall")
from the kvm tree.
I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
is submitted for merging. You may also want to consider cooperating
with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
complex conflicts.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
diff --cc include/uapi/linux/kvm.h
index 9016e96de971,9febe1412f7a..000000000000--- a/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h
+++ b/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h
@@@ -1083,7 -1083,9 +1083,10 @@@ struct kvm_ppc_resize_hpt
#define KVM_CAP_SGX_ATTRIBUTE 196
#define KVM_CAP_VM_COPY_ENC_CONTEXT_FROM 197
#define KVM_CAP_PTP_KVM 198
- #define KVM_CAP_PPC_RPT_INVALIDATE 199
+ #define KVM_CAP_HYPERV_ENFORCE_CPUID 199
+ #define KVM_CAP_SREGS2 200
+ #define KVM_CAP_EXIT_HYPERCALL 201
++#define KVM_CAP_PPC_RPT_INVALIDATE 202
#ifdef KVM_CAP_IRQ_ROUTING
On 22/06/21 07:25, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the kvm tree got a conflict in:
include/uapi/linux/kvm.h
between commit:
9bb4a6f38fd4 ("KVM: PPC: Book3S HV: Add KVM_CAP_PPC_RPT_INVALIDATE capability")
from the powerpc tree and commits:
644f706719f0 ("KVM: x86: hyper-v: Introduce KVM_CAP_HYPERV_ENFORCE_CPUID")
6dba94035203 ("KVM: x86: Introduce KVM_GET_SREGS2 / KVM_SET_SREGS2")
0dbb11230437 ("KVM: X86: Introduce KVM_HC_MAP_GPA_RANGE hypercall")
from the kvm tree.
I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
is submitted for merging. You may also want to consider cooperating
with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
complex conflicts.
What are the dependencies of these KVM patches on patches from the bare metal trees, and can you guys *please* start using topic branches?
I've been asking you for literally years, but this is the first time I remember that Linus will have to resolve conflicts in uAPI changes and it is *not* acceptable.
Please drop the patches at https://www.spinics.net/lists/kvm-ppc/msg18666.html from the powerpc tree, and merge them through either the kvm-powerpc or kvm trees.
Paolo
Paolo Bonzini [off-list ref] writes:
On 22/06/21 07:25, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
quoted
Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the kvm tree got a conflict in:
include/uapi/linux/kvm.h
between commit:
9bb4a6f38fd4 ("KVM: PPC: Book3S HV: Add KVM_CAP_PPC_RPT_INVALIDATE capability")
from the powerpc tree and commits:
644f706719f0 ("KVM: x86: hyper-v: Introduce KVM_CAP_HYPERV_ENFORCE_CPUID")
6dba94035203 ("KVM: x86: Introduce KVM_GET_SREGS2 / KVM_SET_SREGS2")
0dbb11230437 ("KVM: X86: Introduce KVM_HC_MAP_GPA_RANGE hypercall")
from the kvm tree.
I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
is submitted for merging. You may also want to consider cooperating
with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
complex conflicts.
What are the dependencies of these KVM patches on patches from the bare
metal trees,
I don't think there's actually a semantic dependency on my tree, but
there's multiple textual conflicts with my tree. That series has to go
via both trees, or there will be conflicts.
... and can you guys *please* start using topic branches?
I've been asking you for literally years, but this is the first time I
remember that Linus will have to resolve conflicts in uAPI changes and
it is *not* acceptable.
The patches are in a topic branch, which I will ask you to pull before
the merge window, in order to resolve any conflicts.
Please drop the patches at
https://www.spinics.net/lists/kvm-ppc/msg18666.html from the powerpc
tree, and merge them through either the kvm-powerpc or kvm trees.
The kvm-ppc tree is not taking patches at the moment.
But it doesn't matter anyway, this series needs to be merged into my
tree and the KVM tree regardless.
The topic branch is here:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/powerpc/linux.git/log/?h=topic/ppc-kvm
The commit Stephen mentioned has been rebased since to squash in a fix.
But what is in the topic branch is now final, I won't rebase what's
there.
cheers
On 22/06/21 16:51, Michael Ellerman wrote:
quoted
Please drop the patches at
https://www.spinics.net/lists/kvm-ppc/msg18666.html from the powerpc
tree, and merge them through either the kvm-powerpc or kvm trees.
The kvm-ppc tree is not taking patches at the moment.
If so, let's remove the "T" entry from MAINTAINERS and add an entry for the kvm@vger.kernel.org mailing list.
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/powerpc/linux.git/log/?h=topic/ppc-kvm
The commit Stephen mentioned has been rebased since to squash in a fix.
But what is in the topic branch is now final, I won't rebase what's
there.
Thanks, I pulled it. Anyway, if the workflow is not the one indicated by MAINTAINERS it's never a bad idea to Cc more people when applying patches.
Paolo