On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 10:03:02AM -0800, David Daney wrote: > On 02/24/2016 06:07 AM, Marc Zyngier wrote: > >On 24/02/16 13:40, Will Deacon wrote: > > > >[...] > > > >>(and Catalin, if you pick this up, watch out for the conflicts in > >>cpufeature.h) > > > >Yup, that one is about to become a minefield (ARM64_HAS_NO_HW_PREFETCH, > >ARM64_HAS_UAO, ARM64_ALT_PAN_NOT_UAO and ARM64_HAS_VIRT_HOST_EXTN are > >already happily clashing into -next). But hey, the more the merrier! ;-) > > > > Would you like me to rebase it to for-next/core ?
I think ARM64_HAS_VIRT_HOST_EXTN is in the KVM tree, so you're probably best off looking at linux-next and choosing your feature number based on that, whilst basing the patch on either for-next/core or mainline. Will
