On Mon, 06 Feb 2023 08:37:35 +0000,
Marc Zyngier <maz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 06 Feb 2023 01:44:51 +0000,
> Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > [1 <text/plain; US-ASCII (quoted-printable)>]
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Today's linux-next merge of the kvm-arm tree got a conflict in:
> >
> > arch/arm64/kernel/hyp-stub.S
> >
> > between commit:
> >
> > f122576f3533 ("arm64/sme: Enable host kernel to access ZT0")
> >
> > from the arm64 tree and commit:
> >
> > e2d4f5ae1771 ("KVM: arm64: Introduce finalise_el2_state macro")
> >
> > from the kvm-arm tree.
> >
> > I fixed it up (the code modified by the former was moved by the latter,
> > so I applied the following merge fix patch) 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.
> >
> > I hope I got this right :-)
>
> Thanks for giving it a go!
>
> Catalin, we'll probably end-up taking the arm64/for-next/tpidr2 branch
> into the kvmarm tree in order to minimise the damage.
Scratch that, it is the sme2 branch.
M.
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
