Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the kvm-arm tree got a conflict in:

  arch/arm64/kvm/hypercalls.c

between commit:

  d2c173acbf93 ("KVM: arm64: expose SMCCC_ARCH_WORKAROUND_4 to guests")

from the arm64 tree and commit:

  c0000e58c74e ("KVM: arm64: Introduce KVM_REG_ARM_VENDOR_HYP_BMAP_2")

from the kvm-arm 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.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

diff --cc arch/arm64/kvm/hypercalls.c
index 876e6f29a73e,569941eeb3fe..000000000000
--- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hypercalls.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hypercalls.c
@@@ -397,7 -391,7 +401,8 @@@ static const u64 kvm_arm_fw_reg_ids[] 
  	KVM_REG_ARM_STD_BMAP,
  	KVM_REG_ARM_STD_HYP_BMAP,
  	KVM_REG_ARM_VENDOR_HYP_BMAP,
+ 	KVM_REG_ARM_VENDOR_HYP_BMAP_2,
 +	KVM_REG_ARM_SMCCC_ARCH_WORKAROUND_4,
  };
  
  void kvm_arm_init_hypercalls(struct kvm *kvm)

Hi Stephen,

On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 06:21:02 +0000,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the kvm-arm tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   arch/arm64/kvm/hypercalls.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   d2c173acbf93 ("KVM: arm64: expose SMCCC_ARCH_WORKAROUND_4 to guests")
> 
> from the arm64 tree and commit:
> 
>   c0000e58c74e ("KVM: arm64: Introduce KVM_REG_ARM_VENDOR_HYP_BMAP_2")
> 
> from the kvm-arm 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.

Thanks for resolving all 3 conflicts, which look good to me.

Oliver, would you consider picking the following arm64 branches:

- arm64/for-next/leaky-prefetcher
- arm64/for-next/spectre-bhb-assume-vulnerable

so that these conflicts are solved on our end?

Thanks,

	M.

-- 
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.

On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 11:08:30AM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
> 
> On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 06:21:02 +0000,
> Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> > 
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > Today's linux-next merge of the kvm-arm tree got a conflict in:
> > 
> >   arch/arm64/kvm/hypercalls.c
> > 
> > between commit:
> > 
> >   d2c173acbf93 ("KVM: arm64: expose SMCCC_ARCH_WORKAROUND_4 to guests")
> > 
> > from the arm64 tree and commit:
> > 
> >   c0000e58c74e ("KVM: arm64: Introduce KVM_REG_ARM_VENDOR_HYP_BMAP_2")
> > 
> > from the kvm-arm 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.
> 
> Thanks for resolving all 3 conflicts, which look good to me.
> 
> Oliver, would you consider picking the following arm64 branches:
> 
> - arm64/for-next/leaky-prefetcher

Can you hold fire on this one, please? ^^^

Catalin asked for comments on Friday and I'm not sure I'm happy with it.

https://lore.kernel.org/all/174197730164.734861.6726211221092480832.b4-ty@arm.com/

Will reply there shortly...

Will