Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the kvms390 tree got a conflict in:
drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c
between commit:
0daf9878a799 ("s390/vfio_ap: check TAPQ response code when waiting for queue reset")
from the s390 tree and commit:
bedac519eefa ("s390/vfio-ap: check TAPQ response code when waiting for queue reset")
from the kvms390 tree.
They seem to do the same thing, so I used the version of this file from
the s390 tree as it's commit is much newer and has other changes to this
file i.e. I effectively dropped the kvms390 tree commit.
I fixed it up (see above) 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
Am 23.01.23 um 02:12 schrieb Stephen Rothwell:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the kvms390 tree got a conflict in:
>
> drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c
>
> between commit:
>
> 0daf9878a799 ("s390/vfio_ap: check TAPQ response code when waiting for queue reset")
>
> from the s390 tree and commit:
>
> bedac519eefa ("s390/vfio-ap: check TAPQ response code when waiting for queue reset")
>
> from the kvms390 tree.
>
> They seem to do the same thing, so I used the version of this file from
> the s390 tree as it's commit is much newer and has other changes to this
> file i.e. I effectively dropped the kvms390 tree commit.
>
> I fixed it up (see above) 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.
Yes thanks, will drop from the kvms390 tree.
On 1/22/23 8:12 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the kvms390 tree got a conflict in:
>
> drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c
>
> between commit:
>
> 0daf9878a799 ("s390/vfio_ap: check TAPQ response code when waiting for queue reset")
>
> from the s390 tree and commit:
>
> bedac519eefa ("s390/vfio-ap: check TAPQ response code when waiting for queue reset")
>
> from the kvms390 tree.
>
> They seem to do the same thing, so I used the version of this file from
> the s390 tree as it's commit is much newer and has other changes to this
> file i.e. I effectively dropped the kvms390 tree commit.
That's odd, the patch series posted to the kernel mailing lists did not
have both of those patches. I think the problem may have occurred
because there was an earlier version of the patch in question that was
used to debug a problem in our CI. That patch should have been reverted
prior to installing the latest version.
>
> I fixed it up (see above) 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.
>
hAm 23.01.23 um 20:02 schrieb Anthony Krowiak:
>
> On 1/22/23 8:12 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Today's linux-next merge of the kvms390 tree got a conflict in:
>>
>> drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c
>>
>> between commit:
>>
>> 0daf9878a799 ("s390/vfio_ap: check TAPQ response code when waiting for queue reset")
>>
>> from the s390 tree and commit:
>>
>> bedac519eefa ("s390/vfio-ap: check TAPQ response code when waiting for queue reset")
>>
>> from the kvms390 tree.
>>
>> They seem to do the same thing, so I used the version of this file from
>> the s390 tree as it's commit is much newer and has other changes to this
>> file i.e. I effectively dropped the kvms390 tree commit.
>
>
> That's odd, the patch series posted to the kernel mailing lists did not have both of those patches. I think the problem may have occurred because there was an earlier version of the patch in question that was used to debug a problem in our CI. That patch should have been reverted prior to installing the latest version.
Yes, that patch was part of the kvms390 tree and it was old. I removed it. Sorry for the left-over
The one in the s390 tree is the correct one:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
is now
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/s390/linux.git/commit/?h=for-next&id=0daf9878a7990058e74025493820bce0f67654c4
this should be ok now?
Christian
On 1/24/23 6:19 AM, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> hAm 23.01.23 um 20:02 schrieb Anthony Krowiak:
>>
>> On 1/22/23 8:12 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Today's linux-next merge of the kvms390 tree got a conflict in:
>>>
>>> drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c
>>>
>>> between commit:
>>>
>>> 0daf9878a799 ("s390/vfio_ap: check TAPQ response code when
>>> waiting for queue reset")
>>>
>>> from the s390 tree and commit:
>>>
>>> bedac519eefa ("s390/vfio-ap: check TAPQ response code when
>>> waiting for queue reset")
>>>
>>> from the kvms390 tree.
>>>
>>> They seem to do the same thing, so I used the version of this file from
>>> the s390 tree as it's commit is much newer and has other changes to
>>> this
>>> file i.e. I effectively dropped the kvms390 tree commit.
>>
>>
>> That's odd, the patch series posted to the kernel mailing lists did
>> not have both of those patches. I think the problem may have occurred
>> because there was an earlier version of the patch in question that
>> was used to debug a problem in our CI. That patch should have been
>> reverted prior to installing the latest version.
>
>
> Yes, that patch was part of the kvms390 tree and it was old. I removed
> it. Sorry for the left-over
> The one in the s390 tree is the correct one:
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
>
> is now
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/s390/linux.git/commit/?h=for-next&id=0daf9878a7990058e74025493820bce0f67654c4
>
>
> this should be ok now?
Yes, that is the correct one.
>
> Christian