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;
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kvm tree with the tip tree
To:     Nadav Amit <namit@vmware.com>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Cc:     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>
References: <20210422143056.62a3fee4@canb.auug.org.au>
 <142AD46E-6B41-49F3-90C1-624649A20764@vmware.com>
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <e69ecd92-f87c-eb8b-c288-83efb13bb3eb@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 22 Apr 2021 08:29:50 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <142AD46E-6B41-49F3-90C1-624649A20764@vmware.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 22/04/21 06:45, Nadav Amit wrote:
> 
>> On Apr 21, 2021, at 9:30 PM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Today's linux-next merge of the kvm tree got a conflict in:
>>
>>   arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c
>>
>> between commit:
>>
>>   4ce94eabac16 ("x86/mm/tlb: Flush remote and local TLBs concurrently")
>>
>> from the tip tree and commit:
>>
>>   2b519b5797d4 ("x86/kvm: Don't bother __pv_cpu_mask when !CONFIG_SMP")
>>
>> from the kvm tree.
> 
> Thank you and sorry for that.

No problem, this is a reasonable conflict to have.

Paolo

>>   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.
>