Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kvms390 tree with the kvm-arm tree

[Paolo Bonzini]

On 02/08/2018 03:19, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>>  -#define KVM_CAP_S390_HPAGE_1M 156
>>  +#define KVM_CAP_ARM_INJECT_SERROR_ESR 156
>> ++#define KVM_CAP_S390_HPAGE_1M 157
>>   
>>   #ifdef KVM_CAP_IRQ_ROUTING
>>   
> This is now a conflict between the s390 and kvm-arm trees.

This will shortly move to the KVM tree.  The ARM capability will have to
be bumped again since x86 "won" number 157.

Thanks,

Paolo



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kvms390 tree with the kvm-arm tree

[Paolo Bonzini]

On 02/08/2018 03:19, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>>  -#define KVM_CAP_S390_HPAGE_1M 156
>>  +#define KVM_CAP_ARM_INJECT_SERROR_ESR 156
>> ++#define KVM_CAP_S390_HPAGE_1M 157
>>   
>>   #ifdef KVM_CAP_IRQ_ROUTING
>>   
> This is now a conflict between the s390 and kvm-arm trees.

This will shortly move to the KVM tree.  The ARM capability will have to
be bumped again since x86 "won" number 157.

Thanks,

Paolo



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kvms390 tree with the kvm-arm tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi all,

On Tue, 31 Jul 2018 14:23:39 +1000 Stephen Rothwell  
wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the kvms390 tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   include/uapi/linux/kvm.h
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   be26b3a73413 ("arm64: KVM: export the capability to set guest SError 
> syndrome")
> 
> from the kvm-arm tree and commit:
> 
>   a449938297e5 ("KVM: s390: Add huge page enablement control")
> 
> from the kvms390 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 include/uapi/linux/kvm.h
> index a7d9bc4e4068,b955b986b341..
> --- a/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h
> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h
> @@@ -949,7 -949,7 +949,8 @@@ struct kvm_ppc_resize_hpt 
>   #define KVM_CAP_GET_MSR_FEATURES 153
>   #define KVM_CAP_HYPERV_EVENTFD 154
>   #define KVM_CAP_HYPERV_TLBFLUSH 155
>  -#define KVM_CAP_S390_HPAGE_1M 156
>  +#define KVM_CAP_ARM_INJECT_SERROR_ESR 156
> ++#define KVM_CAP_S390_HPAGE_1M 157
>   
>   #ifdef KVM_CAP_IRQ_ROUTING
>   

This is now a conflict between the s390 and kvm-arm trees.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell


pgpRwiTE76QNH.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kvms390 tree with the kvm-arm tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi all,

On Tue, 31 Jul 2018 14:23:39 +1000 Stephen Rothwell  
wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the kvms390 tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   include/uapi/linux/kvm.h
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   be26b3a73413 ("arm64: KVM: export the capability to set guest SError 
> syndrome")
> 
> from the kvm-arm tree and commit:
> 
>   a449938297e5 ("KVM: s390: Add huge page enablement control")
> 
> from the kvms390 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 include/uapi/linux/kvm.h
> index a7d9bc4e4068,b955b986b341..
> --- a/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h
> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h
> @@@ -949,7 -949,7 +949,8 @@@ struct kvm_ppc_resize_hpt 
>   #define KVM_CAP_GET_MSR_FEATURES 153
>   #define KVM_CAP_HYPERV_EVENTFD 154
>   #define KVM_CAP_HYPERV_TLBFLUSH 155
>  -#define KVM_CAP_S390_HPAGE_1M 156
>  +#define KVM_CAP_ARM_INJECT_SERROR_ESR 156
> ++#define KVM_CAP_S390_HPAGE_1M 157
>   
>   #ifdef KVM_CAP_IRQ_ROUTING
>   

This is now a conflict between the s390 and kvm-arm trees.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell


pgpRwiTE76QNH.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

linux-next: manual merge of the kvms390 tree with the kvm-arm tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the kvms390 tree got a conflict in:

  include/uapi/linux/kvm.h

between commit:

  be26b3a73413 ("arm64: KVM: export the capability to set guest SError 
syndrome")

from the kvm-arm tree and commit:

  a449938297e5 ("KVM: s390: Add huge page enablement control")

from the kvms390 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 include/uapi/linux/kvm.h
index a7d9bc4e4068,b955b986b341..
--- a/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h
+++ b/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h
@@@ -949,7 -949,7 +949,8 @@@ struct kvm_ppc_resize_hpt 
  #define KVM_CAP_GET_MSR_FEATURES 153
  #define KVM_CAP_HYPERV_EVENTFD 154
  #define KVM_CAP_HYPERV_TLBFLUSH 155
 -#define KVM_CAP_S390_HPAGE_1M 156
 +#define KVM_CAP_ARM_INJECT_SERROR_ESR 156
++#define KVM_CAP_S390_HPAGE_1M 157
  
  #ifdef KVM_CAP_IRQ_ROUTING
  


pgpJN026N_IXn.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

linux-next: manual merge of the kvms390 tree with the kvm-arm tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the kvms390 tree got a conflict in:

  include/uapi/linux/kvm.h

between commit:

  be26b3a73413 ("arm64: KVM: export the capability to set guest SError 
syndrome")

from the kvm-arm tree and commit:

  a449938297e5 ("KVM: s390: Add huge page enablement control")

from the kvms390 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 include/uapi/linux/kvm.h
index a7d9bc4e4068,b955b986b341..
--- a/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h
+++ b/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h
@@@ -949,7 -949,7 +949,8 @@@ struct kvm_ppc_resize_hpt 
  #define KVM_CAP_GET_MSR_FEATURES 153
  #define KVM_CAP_HYPERV_EVENTFD 154
  #define KVM_CAP_HYPERV_TLBFLUSH 155
 -#define KVM_CAP_S390_HPAGE_1M 156
 +#define KVM_CAP_ARM_INJECT_SERROR_ESR 156
++#define KVM_CAP_S390_HPAGE_1M 157
  
  #ifdef KVM_CAP_IRQ_ROUTING
  


pgpJN026N_IXn.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kvms390 tree with the kvm-arm tree

[Christian Borntraeger]

On 06/28/2017 08:02 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> On Fri, 9 Jun 2017 14:28:56 +1000 Stephen Rothwell  
> wrote:
>>
>> Today's linux-next merge of the kvms390 tree got a conflict in:
>>
>>   arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h
>>
>> between commit:
>>
>>   2387149eade2 ("KVM: improve arch vcpu request defining")
>>
>> from the kvm-arm tree and commit:
>>
>>   8611a6a64661 ("KVM: s390: CMMA tracking, ESSA emulation, migration mode")
>>
>> from the kvms390 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/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h
>> index 9c3bd94204ac,a8cafed79eb4..
>> --- a/arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h
>> +++ b/arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h
>> @@@ -42,9 -42,11 +42,11 @@@
>>   #define KVM_HALT_POLL_NS_DEFAULT 8
>>   
>>   /* s390-specific vcpu->requests bit members */
>>  -#define KVM_REQ_ENABLE_IBS 8
>>  -#define KVM_REQ_DISABLE_IBS9
>>  -#define KVM_REQ_ICPT_OPEREXC   10
>>  -#define KVM_REQ_START_MIGRATION   11
>>  -#define KVM_REQ_STOP_MIGRATION12
>>  +#define KVM_REQ_ENABLE_IBS KVM_ARCH_REQ(0)
>>  +#define KVM_REQ_DISABLE_IBSKVM_ARCH_REQ(1)
>>  +#define KVM_REQ_ICPT_OPEREXC   KVM_ARCH_REQ(2)
>> ++#define KVM_REQ_START_MIGRATIONKVM_ARCH_REQ(3)
>> ++#define KVM_REQ_STOP_MIGRATION KVM_ARCH_REQ(4)
>>   
>>   #define SIGP_CTRL_C0x80
>>   #define SIGP_CTRL_SCN_MASK 0x3f
> 
> With the merge window appraoching, I assume that these 2 trees will
> merge in the kvm tree soon.  This is just a reminder that this conflict
> still exists (I think).

Yes, these 2 trees will be merged in the kvm tree and Paolo/Radim will resolve
the conflict.

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kvms390 tree with the kvm-arm tree

[Christian Borntraeger]

On 06/28/2017 08:02 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> On Fri, 9 Jun 2017 14:28:56 +1000 Stephen Rothwell  
> wrote:
>>
>> Today's linux-next merge of the kvms390 tree got a conflict in:
>>
>>   arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h
>>
>> between commit:
>>
>>   2387149eade2 ("KVM: improve arch vcpu request defining")
>>
>> from the kvm-arm tree and commit:
>>
>>   8611a6a64661 ("KVM: s390: CMMA tracking, ESSA emulation, migration mode")
>>
>> from the kvms390 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/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h
>> index 9c3bd94204ac,a8cafed79eb4..
>> --- a/arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h
>> +++ b/arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h
>> @@@ -42,9 -42,11 +42,11 @@@
>>   #define KVM_HALT_POLL_NS_DEFAULT 8
>>   
>>   /* s390-specific vcpu->requests bit members */
>>  -#define KVM_REQ_ENABLE_IBS 8
>>  -#define KVM_REQ_DISABLE_IBS9
>>  -#define KVM_REQ_ICPT_OPEREXC   10
>>  -#define KVM_REQ_START_MIGRATION   11
>>  -#define KVM_REQ_STOP_MIGRATION12
>>  +#define KVM_REQ_ENABLE_IBS KVM_ARCH_REQ(0)
>>  +#define KVM_REQ_DISABLE_IBSKVM_ARCH_REQ(1)
>>  +#define KVM_REQ_ICPT_OPEREXC   KVM_ARCH_REQ(2)
>> ++#define KVM_REQ_START_MIGRATIONKVM_ARCH_REQ(3)
>> ++#define KVM_REQ_STOP_MIGRATION KVM_ARCH_REQ(4)
>>   
>>   #define SIGP_CTRL_C0x80
>>   #define SIGP_CTRL_SCN_MASK 0x3f
> 
> With the merge window appraoching, I assume that these 2 trees will
> merge in the kvm tree soon.  This is just a reminder that this conflict
> still exists (I think).

Yes, these 2 trees will be merged in the kvm tree and Paolo/Radim will resolve
the conflict.

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kvms390 tree with the kvm-arm tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi all,

On Fri, 9 Jun 2017 14:28:56 +1000 Stephen Rothwell  
wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the kvms390 tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   2387149eade2 ("KVM: improve arch vcpu request defining")
> 
> from the kvm-arm tree and commit:
> 
>   8611a6a64661 ("KVM: s390: CMMA tracking, ESSA emulation, migration mode")
> 
> from the kvms390 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/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> index 9c3bd94204ac,a8cafed79eb4..
> --- a/arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> +++ b/arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> @@@ -42,9 -42,11 +42,11 @@@
>   #define KVM_HALT_POLL_NS_DEFAULT 8
>   
>   /* s390-specific vcpu->requests bit members */
>  -#define KVM_REQ_ENABLE_IBS 8
>  -#define KVM_REQ_DISABLE_IBS9
>  -#define KVM_REQ_ICPT_OPEREXC   10
>  -#define KVM_REQ_START_MIGRATION   11
>  -#define KVM_REQ_STOP_MIGRATION12
>  +#define KVM_REQ_ENABLE_IBS  KVM_ARCH_REQ(0)
>  +#define KVM_REQ_DISABLE_IBS KVM_ARCH_REQ(1)
>  +#define KVM_REQ_ICPT_OPEREXCKVM_ARCH_REQ(2)
> ++#define KVM_REQ_START_MIGRATION KVM_ARCH_REQ(3)
> ++#define KVM_REQ_STOP_MIGRATION  KVM_ARCH_REQ(4)
>   
>   #define SIGP_CTRL_C 0x80
>   #define SIGP_CTRL_SCN_MASK  0x3f

With the merge window appraoching, I assume that these 2 trees will
merge in the kvm tree soon.  This is just a reminder that this conflict
still exists (I think).

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kvms390 tree with the kvm-arm tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi all,

On Fri, 9 Jun 2017 14:28:56 +1000 Stephen Rothwell  
wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the kvms390 tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   2387149eade2 ("KVM: improve arch vcpu request defining")
> 
> from the kvm-arm tree and commit:
> 
>   8611a6a64661 ("KVM: s390: CMMA tracking, ESSA emulation, migration mode")
> 
> from the kvms390 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/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> index 9c3bd94204ac,a8cafed79eb4..
> --- a/arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> +++ b/arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> @@@ -42,9 -42,11 +42,11 @@@
>   #define KVM_HALT_POLL_NS_DEFAULT 8
>   
>   /* s390-specific vcpu->requests bit members */
>  -#define KVM_REQ_ENABLE_IBS 8
>  -#define KVM_REQ_DISABLE_IBS9
>  -#define KVM_REQ_ICPT_OPEREXC   10
>  -#define KVM_REQ_START_MIGRATION   11
>  -#define KVM_REQ_STOP_MIGRATION12
>  +#define KVM_REQ_ENABLE_IBS  KVM_ARCH_REQ(0)
>  +#define KVM_REQ_DISABLE_IBS KVM_ARCH_REQ(1)
>  +#define KVM_REQ_ICPT_OPEREXCKVM_ARCH_REQ(2)
> ++#define KVM_REQ_START_MIGRATION KVM_ARCH_REQ(3)
> ++#define KVM_REQ_STOP_MIGRATION  KVM_ARCH_REQ(4)
>   
>   #define SIGP_CTRL_C 0x80
>   #define SIGP_CTRL_SCN_MASK  0x3f

With the merge window appraoching, I assume that these 2 trees will
merge in the kvm tree soon.  This is just a reminder that this conflict
still exists (I think).

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

linux-next: manual merge of the kvms390 tree with the kvm-arm tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the kvms390 tree got a conflict in:

  arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h

between commit:

  2387149eade2 ("KVM: improve arch vcpu request defining")

from the kvm-arm tree and commit:

  8611a6a64661 ("KVM: s390: CMMA tracking, ESSA emulation, migration mode")

from the kvms390 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/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h
index 9c3bd94204ac,a8cafed79eb4..
--- a/arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h
+++ b/arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h
@@@ -42,9 -42,11 +42,11 @@@
  #define KVM_HALT_POLL_NS_DEFAULT 8
  
  /* s390-specific vcpu->requests bit members */
 -#define KVM_REQ_ENABLE_IBS 8
 -#define KVM_REQ_DISABLE_IBS9
 -#define KVM_REQ_ICPT_OPEREXC   10
 -#define KVM_REQ_START_MIGRATION   11
 -#define KVM_REQ_STOP_MIGRATION12
 +#define KVM_REQ_ENABLE_IBSKVM_ARCH_REQ(0)
 +#define KVM_REQ_DISABLE_IBS   KVM_ARCH_REQ(1)
 +#define KVM_REQ_ICPT_OPEREXC  KVM_ARCH_REQ(2)
++#define KVM_REQ_START_MIGRATION   KVM_ARCH_REQ(3)
++#define KVM_REQ_STOP_MIGRATIONKVM_ARCH_REQ(4)
  
  #define SIGP_CTRL_C   0x80
  #define SIGP_CTRL_SCN_MASK0x3f

linux-next: manual merge of the kvms390 tree with the kvm-arm tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the kvms390 tree got a conflict in:

  arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h

between commit:

  2387149eade2 ("KVM: improve arch vcpu request defining")

from the kvm-arm tree and commit:

  8611a6a64661 ("KVM: s390: CMMA tracking, ESSA emulation, migration mode")

from the kvms390 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/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h
index 9c3bd94204ac,a8cafed79eb4..
--- a/arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h
+++ b/arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h
@@@ -42,9 -42,11 +42,11 @@@
  #define KVM_HALT_POLL_NS_DEFAULT 8
  
  /* s390-specific vcpu->requests bit members */
 -#define KVM_REQ_ENABLE_IBS 8
 -#define KVM_REQ_DISABLE_IBS9
 -#define KVM_REQ_ICPT_OPEREXC   10
 -#define KVM_REQ_START_MIGRATION   11
 -#define KVM_REQ_STOP_MIGRATION12
 +#define KVM_REQ_ENABLE_IBSKVM_ARCH_REQ(0)
 +#define KVM_REQ_DISABLE_IBS   KVM_ARCH_REQ(1)
 +#define KVM_REQ_ICPT_OPEREXC  KVM_ARCH_REQ(2)
++#define KVM_REQ_START_MIGRATION   KVM_ARCH_REQ(3)
++#define KVM_REQ_STOP_MIGRATIONKVM_ARCH_REQ(4)
  
  #define SIGP_CTRL_C   0x80
  #define SIGP_CTRL_SCN_MASK0x3f

linux-next: manual merge of the kvms390 tree with the kvm-arm tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the kvms390 tree got a conflict in:

  include/uapi/linux/kvm.h

between commit:

  2b8ddd9337ee ("KVM: Extend struct kvm_msi to hold a 32-bit device ID")

from the kvm-arm tree and commit:

  6502a34cfd66 ("KVM: s390: allow user space to handle instr 0x")

from the kvms390 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 include/uapi/linux/kvm.h
index 84d9e5f8ab4b,70941f4ab6d8..
--- a/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h
+++ b/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h
@@@ -867,7 -867,7 +867,8 @@@ struct kvm_ppc_smmu_info 
  #define KVM_CAP_VCPU_ATTRIBUTES 127
  #define KVM_CAP_MAX_VCPU_ID 128
  #define KVM_CAP_X2APIC_API 129
 -#define KVM_CAP_S390_USER_INSTR0 130
 +#define KVM_CAP_MSI_DEVID 130
++#define KVM_CAP_S390_USER_INSTR0 131
  
  #ifdef KVM_CAP_IRQ_ROUTING
  

linux-next: manual merge of the kvms390 tree with the kvm-arm tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the kvms390 tree got a conflict in:

  include/uapi/linux/kvm.h

between commit:

  2b8ddd9337ee ("KVM: Extend struct kvm_msi to hold a 32-bit device ID")

from the kvm-arm tree and commit:

  6502a34cfd66 ("KVM: s390: allow user space to handle instr 0x")

from the kvms390 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 include/uapi/linux/kvm.h
index 84d9e5f8ab4b,70941f4ab6d8..
--- a/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h
+++ b/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h
@@@ -867,7 -867,7 +867,8 @@@ struct kvm_ppc_smmu_info 
  #define KVM_CAP_VCPU_ATTRIBUTES 127
  #define KVM_CAP_MAX_VCPU_ID 128
  #define KVM_CAP_X2APIC_API 129
 -#define KVM_CAP_S390_USER_INSTR0 130
 +#define KVM_CAP_MSI_DEVID 130
++#define KVM_CAP_S390_USER_INSTR0 131
  
  #ifdef KVM_CAP_IRQ_ROUTING