Em Fri, 30 May 2025 16:49:03 +0200
Igor Mammedov <imamm...@redhat.com> escreveu:
> On Fri, 30 May 2025 08:01:28 -0400
> "Michael S. Tsirkin" <m...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, May 28, 2025 at 05:42:12PM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> > > On Tue, 20 May 2025 08:41:31 +0200
> > > Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+hua...@kernel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Create a new property (x-has-hest-addr) and use it to detect if
> > > > the GHES table offsets can be calculated from the HEST address
> > > > (qemu 10.0 and upper) or via the legacy way via an offset obtained
> > > > from the hardware_errors firmware file.
> > >
> > >
> > > it doesn't apply to current master anymore
> >
> > indeed. Mauro?
>
> Michael,
> it's trivial conflict in machine compat,
> could you fix it up while applying?
IMHO, that's the best. The thing is, as code gets merged upstream with
backports, conflicts happen.
I can re-send the series, if you prefer, as I'm keeping it rebasing it
from time to time at:
https://gitlab.com/mchehab_kernel/qemu/-/tree/qemu_submitted?ref_type=heads
(it is on the top of upstream/master)
But even that might have conflicts on your test tree if you pick
other patches touching this backport table:
> -GlobalProperty hw_compat_10_0[] = {};
> +GlobalProperty hw_compat_10_0[] = {
> + { TYPE_ACPI_GED, "x-has-hest-addr", "false" },
> +};
(this was the code when I sent the PR. When applying upstream,
such hunk is now(*):
GlobalProperty hw_compat_10_0[] = {
{ "scsi-hd", "dpofua", "off" },
+ { TYPE_ACPI_GED, "x-has-hest-addr", "false" },
};
(*)
https://gitlab.com/mchehab_kernel/qemu/-/commit/08c4859f8c6f36d7dccf2b773be88847e5d1fe0c
If you still prefer that I resubmit the entire PR, let me know.
Regards,
Mauro
