On 15/02/2017 12:16, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>> However, the reason was that this is simply not how topic branches
>> should work: topic branches should be the base for other work, they
>> shouldn't contain _all_ the work.
>
> I think that's an overly specific definition of what a topic branch is.
Paolo Bonzini writes:
> On 14/02/2017 09:45, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>>> If possible, please pull only up to "powerpc/64: Allow for relocation-on
>>> interrupts from guest to host" and cherry-pick the top two patches
>>> ("powerpc/64: CONFIG_RELOCATABLE support for hmi interrupts" and
>>> "powerp
Stephen Rothwell writes:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the kvm tree got a conflict in:
>
> arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_hv_rm_xics.c
>
> between commit:
>
> ab9bad0ead9a ("powerpc/powernv: Remove separate entry for OPAL real mode
> calls")
>
> from the powerpc tree and commit:
>
> 2
On 14/02/2017 09:45, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>> If possible, please pull only up to "powerpc/64: Allow for relocation-on
>> interrupts from guest to host" and cherry-pick the top two patches
>> ("powerpc/64: CONFIG_RELOCATABLE support for hmi interrupts" and
>> "powerpc/powernv: Remove separate e
Paolo Bonzini writes:
> On 10/02/2017 04:59, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Today's linux-next merge of the kvm tree got a conflict in:
>>
>> arch/powerpc/include/asm/head-64.h
>>
>> between commit:
>>
>> 852e5da99d15 ("powerpc/64s: Tidy up after exception handler rework")
>>
>
On 10/02/2017 04:59, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the kvm tree got a conflict in:
>
> arch/powerpc/include/asm/head-64.h
>
> between commit:
>
> 852e5da99d15 ("powerpc/64s: Tidy up after exception handler rework")
>
> from the powerpc tree and commit:
6 matches
Mail list logo