On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 11:34 PM Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 22/04/21 07:53, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Today's linux-next merge of the cgroup tree got conflicts in:
> >
> > arch/x86/kvm/svm/sev.c
> >
> > between commit:
> >
> > 9fa1521daafb ("KVM: SVM: Do not set sev->es_active until KVM_SEV_ES_INIT completes")
> >
> > from the kvm tree and commit:
> >
> > 7aef27f0b2a8 ("svm/sev: Register SEV and SEV-ES ASIDs to the misc controller")
> >
> > from the cgroup tree.
> >
> > I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
> > is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
> > conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
> > is submitted for merging. You may also want to consider cooperating
> > with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
> > complex conflicts.
> >
>
> Tejun, please don't commit patches to other tree without an Acked-by
> from the maintainer (which I wouldn't have provided, as the right way to
> go would have been a topic branch).
>
> Fortunately these patches are at the bottom of your tree. If it's okay,
> I'll just pull from there "as if" you had provided a topic branch all
> the time.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Paolo
>
First of all, I am sorry that my patch series has caused this trouble to
all of you. I am not aware of the correct way to submit a patch series
which changes files in more than one maintainer's territory. Any
guidance for the future will be helpful.
Paolo, Stephen,
We need a little more fix in the sev_asid_free() function for Stephen's
changes to work correctly as es_active is used in that function also.
Is there a repo and branch where I can see the final state of merges
and then I can send my patch against that?
Thanks
Vipin
