On 29/01/2018 05:02, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > On Wed, 17 Jan 2018 13:53:26 +0100 (CET) Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On Wed, 17 Jan 2018, Stephen Rothwell wrote: >>> On Wed, 17 Jan 2018 13:23:17 +0100 (CET) Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> No. Keep it and lets next time coordinate the relevant bits and pieces >>>> better. I reserve that bit 20 and let Linus sort out the trivial conflict >>>> when merging the stuff. >>> >>> I just picked that bit 20 when resolving the conflict. The original patch used >>> bit 11, so the resolution could use any other sensible bit. >> >> 20 is fine :) > > So maybe this (X86_FEATURE_SEV) should be fixed up to use "( 7*32+20)" in > the kvm tree? (Just a followup patch changing the value/position in the > file would be fine). Yes, we'll fix this and the other conflicts with Linus's tree before sending out the pull request. Paolo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
