Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the kvm-arm tree got a conflict in:
arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c
between commit:
55adc08d7e64 ("arm64/sysreg: Add _EL1 into ID_AA64PFR0_EL1 definition names")
from the arm64 tree and commit:
cdd5036d048c ("KVM: arm64: Drop raz parameter from read_id_reg()")
from the kvm-arm 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/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c
index 2ef1121ab844,9569772cf09a..000000000000
--- a/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c
@@@ -1208,9 -1210,9 +1210,9 @@@ static int set_id_aa64pfr0_el1(struct k
return -EINVAL;
/* We can only differ with CSV[23], and anything else is an error */
- val ^= read_id_reg(vcpu, rd, false);
+ val ^= read_id_reg(vcpu, rd);
- val &= ~((0xFUL << ID_AA64PFR0_CSV2_SHIFT) |
- (0xFUL << ID_AA64PFR0_CSV3_SHIFT));
+ val &= ~((0xFUL << ID_AA64PFR0_EL1_CSV2_SHIFT) |
+ (0xFUL << ID_AA64PFR0_EL1_CSV3_SHIFT));
if (val)
return -EINVAL;
Hi Stephen,
Thanks for the heads up.
On Mon, 19 Sep 2022 05:05:31 +0100,
Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the kvm-arm tree got a conflict in:
>
> arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c
>
> between commit:
>
> 55adc08d7e64 ("arm64/sysreg: Add _EL1 into ID_AA64PFR0_EL1 definition names")
>
> from the arm64 tree and commit:
>
> cdd5036d048c ("KVM: arm64: Drop raz parameter from read_id_reg()")
>
> from the kvm-arm 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/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c
> index 2ef1121ab844,9569772cf09a..000000000000
> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c
> @@@ -1208,9 -1210,9 +1210,9 @@@ static int set_id_aa64pfr0_el1(struct k
> return -EINVAL;
>
> /* We can only differ with CSV[23], and anything else is an error */
> - val ^= read_id_reg(vcpu, rd, false);
> + val ^= read_id_reg(vcpu, rd);
> - val &= ~((0xFUL << ID_AA64PFR0_CSV2_SHIFT) |
> - (0xFUL << ID_AA64PFR0_CSV3_SHIFT));
> + val &= ~((0xFUL << ID_AA64PFR0_EL1_CSV2_SHIFT) |
> + (0xFUL << ID_AA64PFR0_EL1_CSV3_SHIFT));
> if (val)
> return -EINVAL;
Catalin, Will: in order to avoid further conflicts, I've taken the
liberty to merge the arm64/for-next/sysreg branch into kvmarm/next.
Let me know if that's a problem.
Also, I've resolved the conflict in a slightly different way. Not that
the above was wrong in any way, but we might as well fix it in a more
idiomatic way:
/* We can only differ with CSV[23], and anything else is an error */
val ^= read_id_reg(vcpu, rd);
- val &= ~((0xFUL << ID_AA64PFR0_CSV2_SHIFT) |
- (0xFUL << ID_AA64PFR0_CSV3_SHIFT));
+ val &= ~(ARM64_FEATURE_MASK(ID_AA64PFR0_EL1_CSV2) |
+ ARM64_FEATURE_MASK(ID_AA64PFR0_EL1_CSV3));
if (val)
return -EINVAL;
Thanks,
M.
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 10:04:30AM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Sep 2022 05:05:31 +0100,
> Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Today's linux-next merge of the kvm-arm tree got a conflict in:
> >
> > arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c
> >
> > between commit:
> >
> > 55adc08d7e64 ("arm64/sysreg: Add _EL1 into ID_AA64PFR0_EL1 definition names")
> >
> > from the arm64 tree and commit:
> >
> > cdd5036d048c ("KVM: arm64: Drop raz parameter from read_id_reg()")
> >
> > from the kvm-arm tree.
[...]
> Catalin, Will: in order to avoid further conflicts, I've taken the
> liberty to merge the arm64/for-next/sysreg branch into kvmarm/next.
> Let me know if that's a problem.
No problem.
> Also, I've resolved the conflict in a slightly different way. Not that
> the above was wrong in any way, but we might as well fix it in a more
> idiomatic way:
>
> /* We can only differ with CSV[23], and anything else is an error */
> val ^= read_id_reg(vcpu, rd);
> - val &= ~((0xFUL << ID_AA64PFR0_CSV2_SHIFT) |
> - (0xFUL << ID_AA64PFR0_CSV3_SHIFT));
> + val &= ~(ARM64_FEATURE_MASK(ID_AA64PFR0_EL1_CSV2) |
> + ARM64_FEATURE_MASK(ID_AA64PFR0_EL1_CSV3));
> if (val)
> return -EINVAL;
It looks fine, thanks.
--
Catalin