On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 01:59:35PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 10/02/21 17:19, Thomas Bogendoerfer wrote: > > > arch/arm64/include/asm/spinlock.h | 2 +- > > > arch/mips/include/asm/spinlock.h | 2 +- > > > arch/xtensa/include/asm/spinlock.h | 2 +- > > > 3 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > which tree should this go through ? I can take it via mips-next, > > if everybody agrees. > > The breakage is in the KVM tree, and the existing patch has acked-by from > the locking primitives folks. So I'll queue it there in order to limit the > range that breaks bisection. if it's not too late you can add by Acked-by: Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> -- Crap can work. Given enough thrust pigs will fly, but it's not necessarily a good idea. [ RFC1925, 2.3 ]
