Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Thu, 22 Apr 2021 14:58:05 +1000
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@rothwell.id.au>
To:     Nadav Amit <namit@vmware.com>
Cc:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, KVM <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kvm tree with the tip tree
Message-ID: <20210422145805.53ca36be@elm.ozlabs.ibm.com>
In-Reply-To: <142AD46E-6B41-49F3-90C1-624649A20764@vmware.com>
References: <20210422143056.62a3fee4@canb.auug.org.au>
        <142AD46E-6B41-49F3-90C1-624649A20764@vmware.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

Hi Nadav,

On Thu, 22 Apr 2021 04:45:38 +0000 Nadav Amit <namit@vmware.com> wrote:
>
> >  static void __init kvm_smp_prepare_boot_cpu(void)
> >  {
> >  	/*
> > @@@ -655,15 -668,9 +673,9 @@@ static void __init kvm_guest_init(void
> > 
> >  	if (kvm_para_has_feature(KVM_FEATURE_STEAL_TIME)) {
> >  		has_steal_clock = 1;
> > -		pv_ops.time.steal_clock = kvm_steal_clock;
> > +		static_call_update(pv_steal_clock, kvm_steal_clock);  
> 
> I do not understand how this line ended in the merge fix though.
> 
> Not that it is correct or wrong, but it is not part of either of
> these 2 patches AFAIK.

It came from another patch that did not cause a conflict but ended up
in the diff output.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell