On Wed, Sep 04, 2013 at 06:08:08PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 5:10 AM, Gleb Natapov <gleb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > This pull request adds tlb_gather_mmu() caller in S390 code, but 2b047252 > > in your tree added another parameter to the function, so the patch bellow > > have to be applied during merge to resolve the conflicts. The patch was > > used in linux-next for awhile. > > Hmm. Fine. Except: > > > /* Reallocate the page tables with pgstes */ > > mm->context.has_pgste = 1; > > - tlb_gather_mmu(&tlb, mm, 0); > > + tlb_gather_mmu(&tlb, mm, 0, TASK_SIZE); > > page_table_realloc(&tlb, mm, 0, TASK_SIZE); > > tlb_finish_mmu(&tlb, 0, -1); > > up_write(&mm->mmap_sem); > > Realistically, the begin/end arguments to tlb_gather_mmu() and > tlb_finish_mmu() should match. In fact, I considered getting rid of > the ones to tlb_finish_mmu() because they are kind of pointless these > days (but didn't, because I wanted to keep the patches minimal). > > And in your case they don't. Which implies a certain amount of confusion. Actually they do match in our internal version of the merge conflict. It was just a copy-paste error from me when sending the merge resolution patch. Since the fix contained two changes lines within the same hunk it was hard to get right.. oh well.. :) Thanks for fixing it! -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
