* Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 6 Jul 2018, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * KY Srinivasan <kys@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > I am confused. The label ipi_mask_done was introduced in this patch > > > (the patch under question fixes a circular dependency in this patch): > > > > > > commit 68bb7bfb7985df2bd15c2dc975cb68b7a901488a > > > Author: K. Y. Srinivasan <kys@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Date: Wed May 16 14:53:31 2018 -0700 > > > > > > X86/Hyper-V: Enable IPI enlightenments > > > > > > Hyper-V supports hypercalls to implement IPI; use them. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: K. Y. Srinivasan <kys@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Reviewed-by: Michael Kelley <mikelley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > This patch was committed by Thomas some weeks ago and is in linux-next. > > > This patch is also in 4.18-rc3. > > > > And then that name was changed to a different label in: > > > > 4bd06060762b: x86/hyper-v: Use cheaper HVCALL_SEND_IPI hypercall when possible > > > > So maybe you were testing on an older kernel. Could you try the latest -tip? > > The problem is that the wreckage is in Linus tree and needs to be fixed > there, i.e. via x86/urgent. Indeed, I missed that! > Now we have the new bits queued in x86/hyperv already which collide. So we > need to merge x86/urgent into x86/hyperv after applying the fix and mop up > the merge wreckage in x86/hyperv. > > I'll have a look tomorrow morning unless you beat me to it. Ok! Thanks, Ingo _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
