Hi all, [cc'ing kvm tree maintainers]
Withe the merge window opening, just a reminder that this conflict still exists. On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 12:59:28 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote: > > Today's linux-next merge of the kvms390 tree got a conflict in: > > arch/s390/kvm/gaccess.c > > between commit: > > a75259825401 ("s390: rename struct psw_bits members") > > from the s390 tree and commit: > > 8993df124642 ("KVM: s390: implement instruction execution protection for > emulated") > > from the kvms390 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 arch/s390/kvm/gaccess.c > index e0f7d5fc7efd,6fda095f1a99..000000000000 > --- a/arch/s390/kvm/gaccess.c > +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/gaccess.c > @@@ -790,8 -808,8 +808,8 @@@ static int guest_page_range(struct kvm_ > return trans_exc(vcpu, PGM_PROTECTION, ga, ar, mode, > PROT_TYPE_LA); > ga &= PAGE_MASK; > - if (psw_bits(*psw).t) { > + if (psw_bits(*psw).dat) { > - rc = guest_translate(vcpu, ga, pages, asce, mode); > + rc = guest_translate(vcpu, ga, pages, asce, mode, > &prot); > if (rc < 0) > return rc; > } else { > @@@ -899,10 -918,10 +918,10 @@@ int guest_translate_address(struct kvm_ > mode, PROT_TYPE_LA); > } > > - if (psw_bits(*psw).t && !asce.r) { /* Use DAT? */ > + if (psw_bits(*psw).dat && !asce.r) { /* Use DAT? */ > - rc = guest_translate(vcpu, gva, gpa, asce, mode); > + rc = guest_translate(vcpu, gva, gpa, asce, mode, &prot); > if (rc > 0) > - return trans_exc(vcpu, rc, gva, 0, mode, PROT_TYPE_DAT); > + return trans_exc(vcpu, rc, gva, 0, mode, prot); > } else { > *gpa = kvm_s390_real_to_abs(vcpu, gva); > if (kvm_is_error_gpa(vcpu->kvm, *gpa)) -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell
