On 06/08/2018 07:21, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the kvm tree got a conflict in:
>
> arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
>
> between a series of commits in Linus' tree and a series of commits in
> the kvm tree.
>
> I have no idea how to fix all this up, so I just dropped
2018-02-02 11:20+1100, Stephen Rothwell:
> Hi Radim,
>
> On Thu, 1 Feb 2018 16:22:44 +0100 Radim Krčmář wrote:
> >
> > I wasn't sure if the pti top branch is final, so I pulled hyper-v topic
> > branch that also also contains v4.15. This and the SEV feature
> > conflicts should be gone now,
>
>
Hi Radim,
On Thu, 1 Feb 2018 16:22:44 +0100 Radim Krčmář wrote:
>
> I wasn't sure if the pti top branch is final, so I pulled hyper-v topic
> branch that also also contains v4.15. This and the SEV feature
> conflicts should be gone now,
That merge would have been a good place to add the followi
On 01/02/2018 10:22, Radim Krčmář wrote:
> 2018-02-01 09:21-0500, Paolo Bonzini:
>> On 01/02/2018 08:22, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>>> Hi Christoffer,
>>>
>>> On Thu, 1 Feb 2018 11:47:07 +0100 Christoffer Dall
>>> wrote:
While the suggested fix is functional it does result in some code
>>
2018-02-01 09:21-0500, Paolo Bonzini:
> On 01/02/2018 08:22, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi Christoffer,
> >
> > On Thu, 1 Feb 2018 11:47:07 +0100 Christoffer Dall
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> While the suggested fix is functional it does result in some code
> >> duplication, and the better resolution i
On 01/02/2018 08:22, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Christoffer,
>
> On Thu, 1 Feb 2018 11:47:07 +0100 Christoffer Dall
> wrote:
>>
>> While the suggested fix is functional it does result in some code
>> duplication, and the better resolution is the following:
>
> OK, I will use that resolution f
On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 12:22:27AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Christoffer,
>
> On Thu, 1 Feb 2018 11:47:07 +0100 Christoffer Dall
> wrote:
> >
> > While the suggested fix is functional it does result in some code
> > duplication, and the better resolution is the following:
>
> OK, I wi
Hi Christoffer,
On Thu, 1 Feb 2018 11:47:07 +0100 Christoffer Dall
wrote:
>
> While the suggested fix is functional it does result in some code
> duplication, and the better resolution is the following:
OK, I will use that resolution form tomorrow on.
Someone needs to remember to let Linus kno
Hi,
On Thu, Feb 01, 2018 at 12:55:12PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the kvm tree got a conflict in:
>
> virt/kvm/arm/arch_timer.c
>
> between commit:
>
> 36e5cfd410ad ("KVM: arm/arm64: Properly handle arch-timer IRQs after
> vtimer_save_state")
On 29/01/2018 05:02, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> On Wed, 17 Jan 2018 13:53:26 +0100 (CET) Thomas Gleixner
> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 17 Jan 2018, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>>> On Wed, 17 Jan 2018 13:23:17 +0100 (CET) Thomas Gleixner
>>> wrote:
No. Keep it and lets next time coordina
Hi all,
On Wed, 17 Jan 2018 13:53:26 +0100 (CET) Thomas Gleixner
wrote:
>
> On Wed, 17 Jan 2018, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > On Wed, 17 Jan 2018 13:23:17 +0100 (CET) Thomas Gleixner
> > wrote:
> > > No. Keep it and lets next time coordinate the relevant bits and pieces
> > > better. I reserv
On Wed, 17 Jan 2018, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jan 2018 13:23:17 +0100 (CET) Thomas Gleixner
> wrote:
> > No. Keep it and lets next time coordinate the relevant bits and pieces
> > better. I reserve that bit 20 and let Linus sort out the trivial conflict
> > when merging the stuff.
>
Hi Thomas,
On Wed, 17 Jan 2018 13:23:17 +0100 (CET) Thomas Gleixner
wrote:
>
> On Wed, 17 Jan 2018, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > On 17/01/2018 12:45, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > On Wed, 17 Jan 2018, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > >> [This is the same conflict I reported the day before yesterday, b
On Wed, 17 Jan 2018, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 17/01/2018 13:23, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > No. Keep it and lets next time coordinate the relevant bits and pieces
> > better. I reserve that bit 20 and let Linus sort out the trivial conflict
> > when merging the stuff.
>
> Thank you. In the future
On 17/01/2018 13:23, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jan 2018, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> On 17/01/2018 12:45, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>> On Wed, 17 Jan 2018, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
[This is the same conflict I reported the day before yesterday, but one
of the commits has moved and anot
On Wed, 17 Jan 2018, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 17/01/2018 12:45, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Wed, 17 Jan 2018, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> >> [This is the same conflict I reported the day before yesterday, but one
> >> of the commits has moved and another that contributed has been dropped.]
> >> di
On 17/01/2018 12:45, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jan 2018, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>> [This is the same conflict I reported the day before yesterday, but one
>> of the commits has moved and another that contributed has been dropped.]
>> diff --cc arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeatures.h
>> index
On Wed, 17 Jan 2018, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> [This is the same conflict I reported the day before yesterday, but one
> of the commits has moved and another that contributed has been dropped.]
> diff --cc arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeatures.h
> index aa09559b2c0b,19f35be95f16..
> --- a/ar
Hi all,
On Fri, 25 Aug 2017 14:34:16 +1000 Stephen Rothwell
wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the kvm tree got a conflict in:
>
> arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeatures.h
>
> between commit:
>
> 5442c2699552 ("x86/cpufeature, kvm/svm: Rename (shorten) the new
> "virtualized V
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 25/05/2015 09:25, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the kvm tree got a conflict in
> arch/x86/kvm/x86.c between commit c447e76b4cab ("kvm/fpu: Enable
> eager restore kvm FPU for MPX") from the tree and commit
>
20 matches
Mail list logo
